The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) standard NU 4-2008 for performance measurements of small-animal tomographs was recently published. Before this standard, there were no standard testing procedures for preclinical PET systems, and manufacturers could not provide clear specifications similar to those available for clinical systems under NEMA NU 2-1994 and 2-2001. Consequently, performance evaluation papers used methods that were modified ad hoc from the clinical PET NEMA standard, thus making comparisons between systems difficult. Methods: We acquired NEMA NU 4-2008 performance data for a collection of commercial animal PET systems manufactured since 2000: microPET P4, microPET R4, microPET Focus 120, microPET Focus 220, Inveon, ClearPET, Mosaic HP, Argus (formerly eXplore Vista), VrPET, LabPET 8, and LabPET 12. The data included spatial resolution, counting-rate performance, scatter fraction, sensitivity, and image quality and were acquired using settings for routine PET. Results: The data showed a steady improvement in system performance for newer systems as compared with first-generation systems, with notable improvements in spatial resolution and sensitivity. Conclusion: Variation in system design makes direct comparisons between systems from different vendors difficult. When considering the results from NEMA testing, one must also consider the suitability of the PET system for the specific imaging task at hand.

Worldwide, more than one billion people suffer from poor vision because they do not have the eyeglasses they need. Their uncorrected refractive errors are a major cause of global disability and drastically reduce productivity, educational opportunities, and overall quality of life. The problem persists most prevalently in low-resource settings, even though prescription eyeglasses serve as a simple, effective, and largely affordable solution. In this review, we discuss barriers to obtaining, and approaches for providing, refractive eye care. We also highlight emerging technologies that are being developed to increase the accessibility of eye care. Finally, we describe opportunities that exist for engineers to develop new solutions to positively impact the diagnosis and treatment of correctable refractive errors in low-resource settings.

We have developed a new X-ray cone-beam tomograph for in vivo small-animal imaging using a flat panel detector (CMOS technology with a microcolumnar CsI scintillator plate) and a microfocus X-ray source. The geometrical configuration was designed to achieve a spatial resolution of about 12 lpmm with a field of view appropriate for laboratory rodents. In order to achieve high performance with regard to per-animal screening time and cost, the acquisition software takes advantage of the highest frame rate of the detector and performs on-the-fly corrections on the detector raw data. These corrections include geometrical misalignments, sensor non-uniformities, and defective elements. The resulting image is then converted to attenuation values. We measured detector modulation transfer function (MTF), detector stability, system resolution, quality of the reconstructed tomographic images and radiated dose. The system resolution was measured following the standard test method ASTM E 1695 -95. For image quality evaluation, we assessed signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) as a function of the radiated dose. Dose studies for different imaging protocols were performed by introducing TLD dosimeters in representative organs of euthanized laboratory rats. Noise figure, measured as standard deviation, was 50 HU for a dose of 10 cGy. Effective dose with standard research protocols is below 200 mGy, confirming that the system is appropriate for in vivo imaging. Maximum spatial resolution achieved was better than 50 micron. Our experimental results obtained with image quality phantoms as well as with in-vivo studies show that the proposed configuration based on a CMOS flat panel detector and a small micro-focus X-ray tube leads to a compact design that provides good image quality and low radiated dose, and it could be used as an add-on for existing PET or SPECT scanners.

This work reports on the development and performance evaluation of the VrPET/CT, a new multimodality scanner with coplanar geometry for in vivo rodent imaging. The scanner design is based on a partial-ring PET system and a small-animal CT assembled on a rotatory gantry without axial displacement between the geometric centers of both fields of view (FOV). We report on the PET system performance based on the NEMA NU-4 protocol; the performance characteristics of the CT component are not included herein. The accuracy of inter-modality alignment and the imaging capability of the whole system are also evaluated on phantom and animal studies. Tangential spatial resolution of PET images ranged between 1.56 mm at the center of the FOV and 2.46 at a radial offset of 3.5 cm. The radial resolution varies from 1.48 mm to 1.88 mm, and the axial resolution from 2.34 mm to 3.38 mm for the same positions. The energy resolution was 16.5% on average for the entire system. The absolute coincidence sensitivity is 2.2% for a 100-700 keV energy window with a 3.8 ns coincident window. The scatter fraction values for the same settings were 11.45% for a mouse-sized phantom and 23.26% for a rat-sized phantom. The peak noise equivalent count rates were also evaluated for those phantoms obtaining 70.8 kcps at 0.66 MBq/cc and 31.5 kcps at 0.11 MBq/cc, respectively. The accuracy of inter-modality alignment is below half the PET resolution, and the image quality of biological specimens agrees with measured performance parameters. The assessment presented in this study shows that the VrPET/CT system is a good performance small-animal imager, while the cost derived from a partial ring detection system is substantially reduced as compared with a full-ring PET tomograph.

In this work, we compare two commercial positron emission tomography (PET) scanners installed at CIEMAT (Madrid, Spain): the ClearPET and the rPET-1. These systems have significant geometrical differences, such as the axial field of view (110 mm on ClearPET versus 45.6 mm on rPET-1), the configuration of the detectors (whole ring on ClearPET versus one pair of planar blocks on rPET-1) and the use of an axial shift between ClearPET detector modules. We used an assessment procedure that fulfilled the recommendations of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) NU 4-2008 standard. The methodology includes studies of spatial resolution, sensitivity, scatter fraction, count losses and image quality. Our experiments showed a central spatial resolution of 1.5 mm (transaxial), 3.2 mm (axial) for the ClearPET and 1.5 mm (transaxial), 1.6 mm (axial) for the rPET-1, with a small variation across the transverse axis on both scanners (~1 mm). The absolute sensitivity at the centre of the field of view was 4.7% for the ClearPET and 1.0% for the rPET-1. The peak noise equivalent counting rate for the mouse-sized phantom was 73.4 kcps reached at 0.51 MBq/mL on the ClearPET and 29.2 kcps at 1.35 MBq/mL on the rPET-1. The recovery coefficients measured using the image quality phantom ranged from 0.11 to 0.89 on the ClearPET and from 0.14 to 0.81 on the rPET-1. The overall performance shows that both the ClearPET and the rPET-1 systems are very suitable for preclinical research and imaging of small animals.