ArticleEJNMMI physics2021
Performance evaluation of a PET insert for preclinical MRI in stand-alone PET and simultaneous PET-MRI modes.
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cryogen-free superconducting magnetic resonance imaging system: A review.Fundamental research · 2026Review
- 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
- Multidimensional lung imaging: integrated preclinical platforms enabling the identification of translational biomarkers for pulmonary research.Respiratory research · 2026Review
- Performance evaluation of the nanoScanEJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Spectra Acquired With Hybrid PET/MR and Standalone MR Scanners.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2025Article
- A data-driven approach for spatial alignment of PET add-on detectors with sub-millimeter accuracy.Physics in medicine and biology · 2025Article
- Assessing PET performance, image quality, and attenuation correction in the presence of RF coils within a 9.4 T MRI for preclinical simultaneous imaging.EJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- First performance evaluation of easyPET.3D, a high-resolution and cost-effective benchtop preclinical PET scanner.EJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- Characterization and Assessment of Projection Probability Density Function and Enhanced Sampling in Self-Collimation SPECT.IEEE transactions on medical imaging · 2023Article
- A Practical Quality Assurance Procedure for Data Acquisitions in Preclinical Simultaneous PET/MR Systems.Molecular imaging and biology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the performance of a preclinical PET insert in three configurations: as a stand-alone unit outside the MRI bore, inside the bore of a cryogen-free 3T MRI and, finally, while performing simultaneous PET/MRI studies.
methodsThe PET insert consists of two rings of six detectors, each detector comprising 8 × 12 SiPMs reading out dual offset layers of pixelated LYSO crystals with a 1.4-mm pitch. The inner diameter is 60 mm, transaxial field of view (FoV) 40 mm and axial FoV 98 mm. Evaluation was based on NEMA NU 4-2008 guidelines with appropriate modifications. Spatial resolution and sensitivity were measured inside and outside the MR bore. Image quality, count rate and quantitative performance were measured in all three configurations. The effect of temperature stability on PET sensitivity during fast spin echo sequences was also evaluated. B
resultsPeak absolute sensitivity was 10.15% with an energy window of 250-750 keV. Absolute sensitivity values outside and inside the MR bore with MR idle agreed to within 0.1%. Outside the MR bore, spatial resolution was 1.21/1.59 mm FWHM (radial/tangential) 5 mm from the centre of the FoV which compared well with 1.19/1.26 mm FWHM inside the MR bore. There were no substantial differences between all three scan configurations in terms of peak NEC rate (175 kcps at 17 MBq), scatter or random fractions. Uniformity and recovery coefficients were also consistent between scanning modes. B
conclusionsWe conclude that the performance of the PET insert and MRI system is not significantly affected by the scanning mode.
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.