ArticleEJNMMI physics2020
Comments on the NEMA NU 4-2008 Standard on Performance Measurement of Small Animal Positron Emission Tomographs.
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sub-0.5-mm Resolution PET Versus Autoradiography: Comparison of mGluR1 Concentrations in Mouse Brain.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2026Article
- Impact on PET spatial resolution through positron range confinement in a high magnetic field across tissue-equivalent materials.Physics in medicine and biology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a PET Insert for Trimodal Imaging: A Step Toward PET/MRI-Guided Focused Ultrasound.IEEE transactions on radiation and plasma medical sciences · 2026Article
- Design and first experimental results of an edgeless PET prototype for breast imaging: DeepBreast.EJNMMI physics · 2026Article
- Time-of-Flight Requirements to Mitigate Blurring Induced by Annihilation Photon Acollinearity.IEEE transactions on radiation and plasma medical sciences · 2026Article
- Performance evaluation of the nanoScanEJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- PET Imaging of the Human Brain with Microvolumetric Spatial Resolution.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2025Article
- Preclinical SPECT and PET: Joint EANM and ESMI procedure guideline for implementing an efficient quality control programme.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Review
- On the implementation of acollinearity in PET Monte Carlo simulations.Physics in medicine and biology · 2024Article
- PETcoil: first results from a second-generation RF-penetrable TOF-PET brain insert for simultaneous PET/MRI.Physics in medicine and biology · 2024Article
- Crystal scatter effects in a large-area dual-panel Positron Emission Mammography system.PloS one · 2024Article
- Image quality evaluation for a clinical organ-targeted PET camera.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- SAFIR-I: first NEMA NU 4-2008-based performance characterization.EJNMMI physics · 2023Article
- Submillimeter-Resolution PET for High-Sensitivity Mouse Brain Imaging.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2023Article
- Understanding the importance of quality control and quality assurance in preclinical PET/CT imaging.EJNMMI physics · 2022Article
- Evaluation of a High-Sensitivity Organ-Targeted PET Camera.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- NEMA characterization of the SAFIR prototype PET insert.EJNMMI physics · 2022Article
- Performance evaluation of the IRIS XL-220 PET/CT system, a new camera dedicated to non-human primates.EJNMMI physics · 2022Article
- Performance Evaluation of SimPET-X, a PET Insert for Simultaneous Mouse Total-Body PET/MR Imaging.Molecular imaging and biology · 2021Article
- Improvement of Spatial Resolution with Iterative PET Reconstruction using UltraFast TOF.IEEE transactions on radiation and plasma medical sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The National Electrical Manufacturers Association's (NEMA) NU 4-2008 standard specifies methodology for evaluating the performance of small-animal PET scanners. The standard's goal is to enable comparison of different PET scanners over a wide range of technologies and geometries used. In this work, we discuss if the NEMA standard meets these goals and we point out potential flaws and improvements to the standard.For the evaluation of spatial resolution, the NEMA standard mandates the use of filtered backprojection reconstruction. This reconstruction method can introduce star-like artifacts for detectors with an anisotropic spatial resolution, usually caused by parallax error. These artifacts can then cause a strong dependence of the resulting spatial resolution on the size of the projection window in image space, whose size is not fully specified in the NEMA standard. If the PET ring has detectors which are perpendicular to a Cartesian axis, then the resolution along this axis will typically improve with larger projection windows.We show that the standard's equations for the estimation of the random rate for PET systems with intrinsic radioactivity are circular and not satisfiable. However, a modified version can still be used to determine an approximation of the random rates under the assumption of negligible random rates for small activities and a constant scatter fraction. We compare the resulting estimated random rates to random rates obtained using a delayed coincidence window and two methods based on the singles rates. While these methods give similar estimates, the estimation method based on the NEMA equations overestimates the random rates.In the NEMA standard's protocol for the evaluation of the sensitivity, the standard specifies to axially step a point source through the scanner and to take a different scan for each source position. Later, in the data analysis section, the standard does not specify clearly how the different scans have to be incorporated into the analysis, which can lead to unclear interpretations of publicized results.The standard's definition of the recovery coefficients in the image quality phantom includes the maximum activity in a region of interest, which causes a positive correlation of noise and recovery coefficients. This leads to an unintended trade-off between desired uniformity, which is negatively correlated with variance (i.e., noise), and recovery.With this work, we want to start a discussion on possible improvements in a next version of the NEMA NU-4 standard.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.