2D X-ray Versus 3D Tomography: Which One Do You Really Need?
In preclinical imaging, the question is no longer whether anatomical information is valuable, but whether every study truly requires a complex 3D tomography workflow.
As optical imaging technologies continue to evolve, researchers increasingly seek anatomical context to complement bioluminescence and fluorescence data. While 3D tomography and micro-CT (micro-computed tomography) provide powerful volumetric information, they also introduce additional complexity, acquisition time, radiation dose, and cost.
For many preclinical studies, a simple 2D X-ray image combined with optical imaging, a practical micro-CT alternative for preclinical research, may provide exactly the information researchers need.