Spatial Resolution calculation using wavelength (medical imaging)

AI Thread Summary
MRI scans exhibit a spatial resolution of 0.3-1mm, while PET scans have a larger spatial resolution of 5-7mm. The calculation of spatial resolution is complex and not solely dependent on wavelength; it involves various factors including imaging technology, detector quality, and feature contrast. Although PET uses gamma rays with shorter wavelengths, the overall resolution is influenced by system design and operational conditions. There is no simple formula applicable to both PET and MRI, and it's recommended to consult manufacturers for specific details. Understanding these nuances is crucial for interpreting imaging capabilities accurately.
nobody0
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi
Im comparing PET scans and MRI scans and I've noticed that MRI
s spatial resolution is 0.3-1mm while PET scans have a spatial resolution much larger, around 5-7mm.

I was just wondering how these figures are calculated. I've looked up some formulae and all I could find was wikipedia, with a formula for telescopes. In particular I need a formula which will make this work in PET and MRI calculations.

What I can't get my head around is that PET use gamma rays which have a shorter wavelength, which it would logically seem would produce more detail (a smaller/better spatial resolution) than the radio waves MRI uses (larger wavelength).

Is there something I am missing here?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
nobody0 said:
Hi
Im comparing PET scans and MRI scans and I've noticed that MRI
s spatial resolution is 0.3-1mm while PET scans have a spatial resolution much larger, around 5-7mm.

I was just wondering how these figures are calculated. I've looked up some formulae and all I could find was wikipedia, with a formula for telescopes. In particular I need a formula which will make this work in PET and MRI calculations.

What I can't get my head around is that PET use gamma rays which have a shorter wavelength, which it would logically seem would produce more detail (a smaller/better spatial resolution) than the radio waves MRI uses (larger wavelength).

Is there something I am missing here?

Thanks

I'm not familiar with medical imaging equipment specifically, but generally speaking without knowing a lot of details about the systems, there is no formula because the resolution limit (actually it's not a number, it's a curve like a point-spread function or a modulation transfer function) of any imaging system depends on a number of factors. Wavelength is often not the most important factor, you need to consider what element does the imaging and how it works, how well does it image (for example even in a telescope the angular resolution is rarely determined solely by diffraction, it's also determined by alignment, mirror/lens quality, atmospheric turbulence, etc.), what feature contrast you're trying to see, detector spatial resolution and detected photon statistics, background statistics, and so on.

So there's no simple answer to your question, except to go to the manufacturer of whatever instruments you're using and see if they can provide you with something useful. I use x-ray imaging systems all the time for other applications, but the spatial resolution I get depends entirely on all these details, and might vary from 5-500 microns, vastly larger than the wavelengths used - I could do better but only in some specialized applications, and I generally don't have the photon statistics to make use of it anyways. If I was imaging a static object at a synchrotron, the game would change entirely, and so would all the numbers.
 
The optical resolution limit (in the telescope/microscope formula) only applies to devices operating on wave optics principles. MRI and PET don´t.
 
I think it's easist first to watch a short vidio clip I find these videos very relaxing to watch .. I got to thinking is this being done in the most efficient way? The sand has to be suspended in the water to move it to the outlet ... The faster the water , the more turbulance and the sand stays suspended, so it seems to me the rule of thumb is the hose be aimed towards the outlet at all times .. Many times the workers hit the sand directly which will greatly reduce the water...
Back
Top