Our Process

1
Study process and document development with protocol design or review
2
Study start-up, imaging center activation, standardization and training
3
Imaging study management and continual site support
4
Central image processing and reporting with quick turnaround time
5
Secure data management with capture, cleaning, integration, tracking and communication
6
Biostatistics for interim reviews and clinical study reports
7
Study close-out, write-up and data archival

Quantitative Imaging Tools

Our extensive range of quantitative imaging tools delivered via a central imaging service provide a more comprehensive assessment of liver tissue for more objective and informed decision-making.

Clinical research opportunity

Leverage our smart imaging tools to optimize your clinical trial for more accurate participant screening, improved trial enrichment, and enhanced monitoring of cholestatic liver disease clinical trials. (5-8)

MRCP+ and LiverMultiScan metrics are accurate, reproducible, and standardized across MRI scanners for more robust and reliable data collection across multiple scanners and sites. (7, 13)

Accurate and reproducible metrics

MRCP+ and LiverMultiScan metrics are accurate, reproducible, and are standardized across MRI scanners for more robust and reliable data collection across multiple scanners and sites.(4,9)

An international imaging network

Perspectum’s international network comprises 500+ sites across the globe. We drive the integration of quantitative imaging in clinical research and improve imaging data quality to streamline logistics and reduce the cost of imaging in clinical trials.

Central Imaging Services

We receive raw images acquired by highly qualified and well-trained imaging center teams. All images are checked for quality, and every report undergoes a review process prior to return.

Learn more about how we can accelerate your clinical trial

Contact us See our publications
References
  1. Banerjee, R., et al. (2014). J Hepatol, 60(1), 69-77. 
  2. Pavlides, M., et al. (2016). J Hepatol, 64(2), 308-315. 
  3. Pavlides, M., et al. (2017). Liver Int, 37(7), 1065-1073. 
  4. Idilman, I. S., et al. (2013). Radiology, 267(3), 767–775.
  5. Caussy, C., et al. (2018). Hepatology, 68(2), 763–772.
  6. Wilman, H.R., et al. (2017). PLOS ONE, 12(2), e0172921.
  7. Bachtiar, V., et al. (2019). PLOS ONE, 14(4), e0214921.
  8. McDonald, N., et al. (2018). Sci Rep, 8(1), 9189.
  9. Mayo R., et al. (2018). Hepatol Commun, 2(7), 807–20.
  10. Wildman-Tobriner, B., et al. (2018). Gastroenterology, 155(5), 1428–1435.
  11. Park, C. C., et al. (2017). Gastroenterology, 152(3), 598–607.
  12. Jayaswal, A., et al. (2020). Liver International, 40(12), 3071-3082.
  13. Dennis, A., et al. (2020). Scientific Reports, 10(1), 15308.
  14. Imajo, K., et al. (2021). World Journal of Gastroenterology, 27(7), 609–623.
  15. Dennis, A., et al. (2021). Frontiers in Endocrinology, 11, 575843.  
  16. Beyer, C., et al. (2021). Plos One, 16(4), e0249491.
  17. Andersson, A., et al. (2021). Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, S1542-3565(21)01056-9.
  18. Harrison, S., et al. (2018). PloS One, 13(9), e0203054.
  19. Harrison, S.A. et al. (2020). Journal of Hepatology, 71(4), 1198–1212.
  20. Harrison, S.A., et al. (2021). The American Journal of Gastroenterology. 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001375
  21. Langford, C.R., et al. (2021). Journal of Clinical Pathology. 75(2), 73–75.

These products and services are for investigational use only.