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: micro- PET 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.

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 1 cost derived from a partial ring detection system is substantially reduced as compared with a full-ring PET tomograph.

No abstract

Abstract-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 E1695-95. 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.

Purpose: Triple coincidences in positron emission tomography (PET) are events in which three γ-rays are detected simultaneously. These events, though potentially useful for enhancing the sensitivity of PET scanners, are discarded or processed without special consideration in current systems, because there is not a clear criterion for assigning them to a unique line-of-response (LOR). Methods proposed for recovering such events usually rely on the use of highly specialized detection systems, hampering general adoption, and/or are based on Compton-scatter kinematics and, consequently, are limited in accuracy by the energy resolution of standard PET detectors. In this work, the authors propose a simple and general solution for recovering triple coincidences, which does not require specialized detectors or additional energy resolution requirements. Methods: To recover triple coincidences, the authors' method distributes such events among their possible LORs using the relative proportions of double coincidences in these LORs. The authors show analytically that this assignment scheme represents the maximum-likelihood solution for the triple-coincidence distribution problem. The PET component of a preclinical PET/CT scanner was adapted to enable the acquisition and processing of triple coincidences. Since the efficiencies for detecting double and triple events were found to be different throughout the scanner field-of-view, a normalization procedure specific for triple coincidences was also developed. The effect of including triple coincidences using their method was compared against the cases of equally weighting the triples among their possible LORs and discarding all the triple events. The authors used as figures of merit for this comparison sensitivity, noise-equivalent count (NEC) rates and image quality calculated as described in the NEMA NU-4 protocol for the assessment of preclinical PET scanners. Results: The addition of triple-coincidence events with the authors' method increased peak NEC rates of the scanner by 26.6% and 32% for mouse-and rat-sized objects, respectively. This increase in NEC-rate performance was also reflected in the image-quality metrics. Images reconstructed using double and triple coincidences recovered using their method had better signal-to-noise ratio than those obtained using only double coincidences, while preserving spatial resolution and contrast. Distribution of triple coincidences using an equal-weighting scheme increased apparent system sensitivity but degraded image quality. The performance boost provided by the inclusion of triple coincidences using their method allowed to reduce the acquisition time of standard imaging procedures by up to ∼25%. parameters like spatial resolution or contrast.

No abstract

Tunable lenses are becoming ubiquitous, in applications including microscopy, optical coherence tomography, computer vision, quality control, and presbyopic corrections. Many applications require an accurate control of the optical power of the lens in response to a time-dependent input waveform. We present a fast focimeter (3.8 KHz) to characterize the dynamic response of tunable lenses, which was demonstrated on different lens models. We found that the temporal response is repetitive and linear, which allowed the development of a robust compensation strategy based on the optimization of the input wave, using a linear time-invariant model. To our knowledge, this work presents the first procedure for a direct characterization of the transient response of tunable lenses and for compensation of their temporal distortions, and broadens the potential of tunable lenses also in high-speed applications.

SIGNIFICANCE There is a critical need for tools that increase the accessibility of eye care to address the most common cause of vision impairment: uncorrected refractive errors. This work assesses the performance of an affordable autorefractor, which could help reduce the burden of this health care problem in low-resource communities. PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to validate the commercial version of a portable wavefront autorefractor for measuring refractive errors. METHODS Refraction was performed without cycloplegia using (1) a standard clinical procedure consisting of an objective measurement with a desktop autorefractor followed by subjective refraction (SR) and (2) with the handheld autorefractor. Agreement between both methods was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis and by comparing the visual acuity (VA) with trial frames set to the resulting measurements. RESULTS The study was conducted on 54 patients (33.9 ± 14.1 years of age) with a spherical equivalent (M) refraction determined by SR ranging from −7.25 to 4.25 D (mean ± SD, −0.93 ± 1.95 D). Mean differences between the portable autorefractor and SR were 0.09 ± 0.39, −0.06 ± 0.13, and 0.02 ± 0.12 D for M, J 0, and J 45, respectively. The device agreed within 0.5 D of SR in 87% of the eyes for spherical equivalent power. The average VAs achieved from trial lenses set to the wavefront autorefractor and SR results were 0.02 ± 0.015 and 0.015 ± 0.042 logMAR units, respectively. Visual acuity resulting from correction based on the device was the same as or better than that achieved by SR in 87% of the eyes. CONCLUSIONS This study found excellent agreement between the measurements obtained with the portable autorefractor and the prescriptions based on SR and only small differences between the VA achieved by either method.