<p><strong>Background: </strong>Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Computed Tomography (CT) are among the most important diagnostic imaging technologies used in contemporary healthcare. Although both modalities provide cross-sectional images of internal anatomical structures, they differ substantially in their physical principles, image characteristics, diagnostic applications, acquisition time, cost, accessibility, and patient-safety considerations. CT is particularly valuable for rapid assessment of trauma, acute neurological emergencies, pulmonary disease, and osseous structures, whereas MRI provides superior soft-tissue contrast and is widely used for neurological, musculoskeletal, spinal, and abdominal imaging. Selecting the most appropriate modality requires consideration of diagnostic accuracy, image quality, clinical suitability, operational efficiency, and patient safety.</p>

<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The study aims to comparatively evaluate MRI and CT scan with respect to diagnostic accuracy, image quality, clinical applications, operational efficiency, patient safety, and perceived patient outcomes. It further examines the relationships among imaging technology capabilities, clinical innovation, operational efficiency, and patient outcomes.</p>

<p><strong>Methodology: </strong>A quantitative, cross-sectional comparative research design is proposed. Data are collected through a structured questionnaire administered to healthcare professionals and diagnostic imaging stakeholders with experience or knowledge of MRI and CT services. The proposed analytical framework incorporates descriptive statistics, reliability testing using Cronbach&#39;s alpha, Kaiser&ndash;Meyer&ndash;Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett&#39;s test, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), normality assessment, Pearson correlation, and multiple regression analysis. Three dependent constructs&mdash;clinical innovation, operational efficiency, and patient outcomes&mdash;are examined in relation to MRI and CT-related technological and organisational factors.</p>

<p><strong>Results: </strong>The comparative framework indicates that MRI is generally perceived as superior for soft-tissue characterisation and applications requiring high anatomical contrast, while CT is recognised for speed, emergency imaging, bone assessment, and broad clinical accessibility. Patient-safety considerations differ between the modalities: CT involves exposure to ionising radiation, whereas MRI does not use ionising radiation but introduces concerns related to magnetic-field safety, implanted devices, claustrophobia, and contrast-agent considerations. The proposed empirical model is expected to demonstrate significant associations between diagnostic imaging capability, image quality, clinical application suitability, and patient outcomes.</p>

<p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MRI and CT should not be viewed as competing technologies in absolute terms. Rather, they represent complementary diagnostic modalities whose relative value depends on clinical context, patient characteristics, urgency, anatomical region, and resource availability. An integrated modality-selection strategy can improve diagnostic decision-making, operational efficiency, and patient-centred care.</p>