National PET Imaging Platform Data Platform Grant 2026: Closed-Cycle Guide for Consortium Teams

National PET Imaging Platform Data Platform Grant 2026: Closed-Cycle Guide

This page records the 2026 National PET Imaging Platform (NPIP) Data Platform funding opportunity from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI). The official UKRI listing is now marked Closed, and it says that applications could not be submitted after 17 June 2026 at 4:00pm UK time. There is no later cycle or replacement application deadline announced on the official opportunity page reviewed for this update. The front matter therefore keeps the genuine closing date and marks this page as historicalReference = true.

This is an archive entry, not an open application route. The information below explains what the completed round sought, who could take part, what the funding covered, and how the submission process worked. It should help consortium members understand the call record or prepare for a future UKRI announcement, but it is not a basis for sending a late application.

At a glance

The dates and amounts in this table describe the closed round. They are not a promise that the next NPIP data call will use the same timetable, budget, eligibility rules, or application system.

What the grant was for

NPIP is a UKRI Infrastructure Fund investment built around total-body positron emission tomography (PET) imaging. The data-platform award was intended to provide a unified repository for collecting, curating, managing, and sharing total-body PET imaging data and associated research data produced by the NPIP scanner network. The goal was not to fund a standalone biomedical study. It was to create and operate shared infrastructure that could serve NPIP contributors and approved users of the resulting data.

The official brief required the proposed platform to make NPIP data findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable where permitted. In practical terms, that meant more than storing image files. A credible service needed a way to describe datasets, manage quality and provenance, control access, support reuse, and help different organisations work with comparable information. The brief also asked applicants to consider both processed DICOM images and more limited list-mode data, together with the research information associated with scans.

The platform was expected to provide a single route for researchers seeking secondary use of NPIP data. Its users could include academia, industry, the NHS, public research organisations, and other relevant stakeholders. The call also covered NPIP-sponsored academic, commercial, and NHS studies, including clinical trials. That combination made governance, service operations, and regulatory readiness as important as storage capacity or software development.

UKRI asked applicants to work with existing infrastructure, governance, services, tools, and data-management approaches wherever possible. Open-source approaches were preferred when feasible. A proposal that simply described a new bespoke system without explaining why existing solutions could not meet the need would have missed an explicit part of the brief.

Who was eligible for the 2026 round

This was an invitation-only opportunity. The lead could apply only if the organisation had been invited and was a member of the NPIP Data Platform consortium bid developed and approved by NPIP. The lead also had to be employed by an eligible research organisation, direct the project, and remain actively engaged in the work.

UKRI asked the team to show relevant infrastructure development experience. Evidence of successfully delivering research infrastructure was to be prioritised over research success on its own. The initial leadership team needed to represent consortium members across a partnership of eligible organisations. There was no limit on the number of co-leads, but the application had to explain each co-lead’s distinct contribution.

The eligibility rules also shaped consortium design. The project lead was not expected to be a director of an affiliated NPIP PET scanner site. Businesses, charities, and third-sector organisations could not lead or be project co-leads under the standard route, but they could participate as project partners. An international infrastructure developer could participate as an international co-project lead when making a major intellectual and technical contribution; international collaborators that did not fit that role were to be included as project partners.

The brief placed value on a collegiate approach to bringing NPIP data assets together, collaboration on connections to other health-data assets, and an inclusive approach to wider engagement in the UK and overseas. The team needed to show that its structure would support shared decisions and benefit the broader total-body PET research community, rather than serve only the host institution.

What the proposed platform needed to address

The official scope was broad, but it was not a request for an unlimited feature list. UKRI wanted an initial technical offering alongside a credible way to refine requirements with stakeholders and manage change. The application needed to explain how the consortium would:

• engage academia, industry, the NHS, public research organisations, patients, practitioners, and other relevant stakeholders;
• collect, curate, harmonise, and quality-manage total-body PET images and associated research data;
• balance access to different data forms, including processed images and list-mode data, against expected use and available resources;
• choose between cloud, on-premises, or hybrid approaches while preserving useful access and appropriate controls;
• identify PET image and metadata standards, creating new standards only when essential;
• provide shared services and tools, including support for advanced analytics such as artificial intelligence and machine learning;
• support federation and linkage to sensitive and non-sensitive health and non-health data, particularly routine health data; and
• establish governance for security, compliance, ethics, equity, monitoring, and evaluation.

The page supplied a useful sizing signal for architecture planning: initial consultation suggested that each total-body PET scanner site could generate 20 to 50 TB of data per year, with a mixture of processed DICOM images and a smaller amount of list data. It also stated that there were four active or planned UK total-body PET scanner sites and that the network was expected to grow. Those figures were contextual information for the application, not a guaranteed future capacity requirement.

The proposed service also needed to account for national and international commercial studies. UKRI expected the platform to meet essential information and regulatory standards required by study sponsors. For sensitive data, the call specifically referred to the Five Safes approach and other accreditation standards relevant to infrastructures that host or federate sensitive health data. The application needed to describe how users, projects, outputs, and data would be governed rather than treating access as a simple download button.

Funding and costs

The official listing gave the opportunity a total fund of £4.7 million and a maximum award of £4.7 million. It described the project cost as up to £4.7 million full economic cost and stated that MRC would fund 100% of the FEC. The detailed application guidance also said that justified costs should be entered as exceptions and that the opportunity was not subject to ordinary full economic costing.

Eligible cost areas included contributions to the project lead and co-lead salaries, an infrastructure manager and technical staff, equipment for data collection and curation, storage, access, and analysis, including cloud computing, meetings and travel, data management, platform tools and services, information-governance work, knowledge mobilisation, dissemination, public and patient involvement, practitioner engagement, estates, and indirect costs.

The opportunity did not fund general biomedical research, except for infrastructure research and development needed to establish and deliver the data platform. It also excluded animal costs, publication costs, studentships, fellowships, and stipends. There was no requirement for matched funding from the host institutions, although third-party cash and in-kind contributions were encouraged. A strong cost case would therefore have connected each major resource to an operational need: data curation, security, user support, storage, interoperability, governance, training, or long-term service delivery.

How the application process worked

UKRI ran the opportunity through the new UKRI Funding Service, not the Joint Electronic Submissions system. The project lead was responsible for completing the application, while consortium members and project partners were expected to contribute. Only the lead research organisation could submit the final application.

The invitation email supplied the start-application link. The process described by UKRI was:

1. Confirm that the applicant was the project lead.
2. Sign in to, or create, a UKRI Funding Service account and select the organisation.
3. Complete the questions in the Funding Service text boxes, using the upload instructions if the system requested a document.
4. Check the completed application in read-only view before sending it to the research office.
5. Send it to the research office for institutional and finance checks.
6. Allow the research office to submit the checked application to UKRI.

The application was assessed through eligibility and scope checks, followed by a panel with expertise in large infrastructure investments and data management. UKRI said the panel would interview applicants and make a funding recommendation, with MRC making the final decision. The assessment areas were vision, approach including data management, applicant and team capability, ethics and responsible research and innovation, and resource and cost justification.

The listed application sections were substantial. The summary had a 550-word limit. The approach section had a 6,000-word limit and sought a management plan, consortium charter, governance, milestones, risk controls, maintenance, access, training, inclusion, sustainability, cloud or on-premises reasoning, standards, PET analysis support, commercial-study requirements, and data federation. The data-management plan had a 1,500-word limit for imaging and other rich data collections. UKRI also requested sections covering team capability, ethics, trusted research and innovation, international collaboration, and resource justification.

Because the call is closed, these instructions are best read as a record of what the 2026 applicants had to prepare. They should not be treated as current requirements for a future round. UKRI may change the questions, word limits, portal, funders, or submission route.

Practical lessons from the closed brief

The strongest response would have treated the platform as a shared national service with a clear first release and a disciplined route for later changes. It would have identified users and their access journeys, from data discovery through approval and secure analysis to publication or deposit of derived outputs. It would have explained which existing platforms and standards would be reused and where a new component was necessary.

The technical plan needed to connect data volume to service design. PET files can be large, and different users may need different representations. The call therefore rewarded a reasoned policy for retaining, transforming, moving, and serving processed images and list data. It also required the consortium to address quality management, audit, harmonisation, metadata, identity and access, and the relationship between cloud, local, and federated resources.

The governance plan needed equal attention. Linkage to routine health records can create substantial privacy and accountability risks. Applicants needed to explain how access would be reviewed, how sensitive work would be performed in an appropriately controlled environment, how outputs would be checked, and how the platform would obtain or work within required accreditations. Ethics, equity, public involvement, and responsible international collaboration were part of the assessment, not optional extras.

Finally, the proposal needed to survive beyond the award. UKRI asked for plans covering maintenance, upgrades, workforce development, cost recovery, shared infrastructure, environmental sustainability, and legacy after the funded period. The 42-month award and fixed start date made mobilisation important, but a service that could not be maintained after the award would not meet the long-term purpose of an infrastructure investment.

Archive status and next step

The official UKRI page currently records the opportunity as closed. Its final application date was 17 June 2026 at 4:00pm UK time, and UKRI states that applications could not be made after that point. The page does not announce a new NPIP Data Platform round. Readers should therefore use this entry to understand the completed 2026 call and wait for a new UKRI or NPIP announcement before relying on a future deadline, budget, eligibility rule, or application link.

For the source record and any later update, consult the official opportunity page: https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/national-pet-imaging-platform-data-platform/