Clinical vs. Preclinical Ultrasound: Why Frequency Matters
Our Ultrasound System
Prospect T2
In ultrasound research, resolution matters, especially when working in small animal models. Whether you’re studying cardiovascular function in mice, monitoring tumor progression, or evaluating therapeutic efficacy, the tools you use can significantly influence the quality and reproducibility of your data. Yet many labs still rely on clinical ultrasound systems, devices designed for humans, to image small animal models.
While this may seem convenient, using clinical systems for preclinical applications introduces limitations that can compromise your results. Here’s why dedicated preclinical ultrasound systems are the right choice.
🔍 1. Clinical Ultrasound Lacks the Resolution Small Animals Require
Clinical ultrasound is designed for imaging humans, not small animals with organs and vessels only millimeters, or even microns, wide. These systems typically operate between 2–15 MHz, which is far too low to resolve fine anatomical structures in mice or rats.
Preclinical ultrasound systems, on the other hand, operate at 15–50 MHz, enabling:
- High-resolution micro-anatomical imaging
- Precise visualization of vessels, valves, and soft tissues
- Improved ability to quantify subtle physiological changes
Without this resolution, many preclinical findings risk being missing or inaccurate.
🫀 2. Hemodynamic Measurements in Small Animals Are Not Accurate with Clinical Systems
Clinical ultrasound is designed for imaging humans, not small animals with organs and vessels only millimeters, or even microns, wide. These systems typically operate between 2–15 MHz, which is far too low to resolve fine anatomical structures in mice or rats.
Preclinical ultrasound systems, on the other hand, operate at 15–50 MHz, enabling:
- High-resolution micro-anatomical imaging
- Precise visualization of vessels, valves, and soft tissues
- Improved ability to quantify subtle physiological changes
Without this resolution, many preclinical findings risk being missing or inaccurate.
🐁 3. Animal Handling and Imaging Positioning Are Not Compatible
Preclinical imaging requires specialized animal staging:
- Temperature-controlled platforms
- Integrated anesthesia and physiological monitoring
- Fixation designed for stable, repeatable positioning
Clinical probes and tables are not designed for small rodents, making it harder to maintain stability, control motion, or achieve consistent imaging planes.
💸 4. Clinical Ultrasound Is Not Actually Cost-Effective
At first glance, using an existing clinical system seems budget-friendly. However, the hidden costs include:
- Low-quality imaging leading to inconclusive results
- More repeated scans
- More animals needed
- Difficulty publishing due to insufficient imaging clarity
Preclinical ultrasound systems are specifically engineered to deliver the kind of data reviewers, collaborators, and funding agencies expect.
🔬 The Better Choice: Purpose-Built Preclinical Ultrasound
A dedicated small-animal ultrasound system, like the Prospect T2 Ultrasound System, offers:
- High-frequency, high-resolution imaging
- Real-time hemodynamic monitoring
- Compact, researcher-friendly design
- Cost-effective performance for labs and imaging cores
These systems help researchers generate more reliable, reproducible, and publication-ready data.
📌 Final Thoughts
Using clinical ultrasound for preclinical studies is not just a limitation—it poses a risk to data quality. With the increasing demand for precision, reproducibility, and translational relevance, preclinical researchers need tools tailored to their models.
Purpose-built preclinical ultrasound systems empower scientists to image with accuracy, confidence, and efficiency—ultimately elevating the impact of their research.
