ArticleEJNMMI physics2025
Assessing PET performance, image quality, and attenuation correction in the presence of RF coils within a 9.4 T MRI for preclinical simultaneous imaging.
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Quantitative Preclinical Imaging as a Metrological Framework: Reproducibility, Validation, and Translational Maturity.Journal of imaging · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluates the performance of a positron emission tomography (PET) insert combined with a 9.4 Tesla magnetic resonance (MR) imaging system using three different radiofrequency (RF) coils. The impact of the RF coils within the PET field of view (FoV) on key PET performance parameters was carefully examined. Additionally, the accuracy of MR-based attenuation correction (AC) on the quantitative PET results was assessed. PROCEDURES: The performance of the PET scanner was assessed according to the NEMA NU 4-2008 standards, focusing on sensitivity, spatial resolution, noise-equivalent count (NEC) rate, and image quality metrics (homogeneity, spillover ratios, and recovery coefficients). These evaluations were conducted with three different RF coils within the PET FoV: a mouse-dedicated coil, a rat-dedicated coil (not optimized for PET), and a big-rat-dedicated coil. Quantitative testing of AC accuracy was also performed using homogeneously filled phantoms of varying sizes and activity levels, comparing images reconstructed with and without AC.
resultsThe peak absolute sensitivity varied depending on the RF coil used, though spatial resolution was unaffected by the presence of the coils. The NEC curve for the mouse phantom peaked at 441.2 kcps at 29.3 MBq with the mouse-dedicated coil. For the rat phantom, NEC was only tested with the rat-dedicated coils, and the NEC peak reached 203.1 kcps at 27.5 MBq with the big-rat-dedicated coil. Activity concentrations in the NEMA image quality phantom were underestimated when standard MR-AC was applied, likely due to the absence of phantom walls in the generated µ-maps. However, for uniformly filled phantoms with wall thicknesses under 1 mm, standard MR-AC provided accurate quantification.
conclusionsOverall, the presence of RF coils had only a minor effect on the performance of the PET/MR insert, with the most significant variation observed for the non-PET-optimized coil. Attenuation correction based on generated µ-maps performed well for phantoms with minimal wall thickness.
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.