ArticleEJNMMI physics2025
Performance evaluation of the nanoScan
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeBefore utilising preclinical Position Emission Tomography (PET) systems for biological studies, evaluating their performance is important to better qualify the scanner's applications. This study aims to assess the performance of the new extended field of view (FOV) nanoScan® PET/CT P123S system, developed for rodent total-body PET applications.
methodsScanner resolution, noise equivalent count rate (NECR), sensitivity and image quality were evaluated following NEMA NU-4 2008 protocols. Furthermore, a Derenzo phantom and linearity measurements were conducted. In vivo studies were subsequently carried out to evaluate system performance in biological applications.
resultsThe scanner spatial resolution according to the NEMA protocol was 1.4 mm using FBP reconstruction, while with iterative reconstruction it was under 0.7 mm. The NECR peak using a 250‒750 keV energy window was 1805.0 kcps at 93.7 MBq and 880.7 kcps at 88.4 MBq for the mouse-sized and rat-sized phantom respectively. The absolute sensitivity was 10.5%. The standard deviation of the uniform area of the image quality phantom was 1.8%, while the recovery coefficients varied between 0.23 and 1.00. The spill-over ratios were 0.04, and 0.04 in the water and air-filled chambers respectively. Quantitative bias was < 4% with a linear response up to 105 MBq. Total-body rat images were successfully acquired using the new system.
conclusionThe new extended FOV PET system has improved sensitivity and count rate performance compared with previous systems. Its spatial resolution and quantitative accuracy are well-suited for preclinical PET applications. The extended FOV enables total-body imaging of both mice and rats.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.