ArticleEJNMMI physics2025
Feasibility of in vivo small animal imaging using a clinical total-body PET/CT system.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- PHYTO-PET - Imaging plant physiology on a long-axial field-of-view PET scanner.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical PET scanners have long been explored for preclinical imaging, but limited spatial resolution and sensitivity have restricted their use for preclinical studies. The recent availability of total-body (TB) PET/CT scanners with extended axial fields of view (FOVs) has largely overcome sensitivity limitations, enabling potential new opportunities for small-animal imaging. This study evaluated the feasibility and performance of the Biograph Vision Quadra TB-PET/CT for rodent imaging compared to the dedicated small-animal PET scanner Inveon DPET. MATERIAL AND
methodsRecovery coefficients (RC), image noise, and optimum image reconstruction parameters were assessed using the preclinical NEMA NU 4-2008 image quality phantom and a sub-cohort of three anesthetized mice as a proof-of-concept demonstrating the feasibility of the setup. In vivo quantification accuracy was evaluated by scanning nine frozen mice simultaneously in three different arrangements with the Quadra compared with individual scans at the Inveon. To ensure comparability, all mice were snap-frozen after 1 h uptake of [
resultsPhantom rods ≥ 2 mm could be resolved with the Quadra, showing a comparable RC for larger structures, e.g. for the 5 mm rod of 1.17 compared to 1.09 (Inveon) when using point-spread-function modeling, whilst having lower noise of 5.1%SD vs 9.0%SD. No substantial position-dependent effects were detected in the phantom or single-mouse scan across the axial FOV. SUV
conclusionDespite the lower spatial resolution of the clinical TB-PET/CT scanner (~ 3-4 mm) compared to the dedicated preclinical scanner (~ 1.5 mm), robust SUV
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.