ArticleUltrasound in medicine & biology2015
Material characterization of in vivo and in vitro porcine brain using shear wave elasticity.
Article in Ultrasound in medicine & biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Mechanical characterization of brain tissue: experimental techniques, human testing considerations, and perspectives.Acta biomaterialia · 2025Review
- Article
- Article
- Novel tonometer device distinguishes brain stiffness in epilepsy surgery.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Mechanical regulation of oligodendrocyte biology.Neuroscience letters · 2020Review
- Allometric scaling of skin thickness, elasticity, viscoelasticity to mass for micro-medical device translation: from mice, rats, rabbits, pigs to humans.Scientific reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Realistic computer simulation of closed head trauma requires accurate mechanical properties of brain tissue, ideally in vivo. A substantive deficiency of most existing experimental brain data is that properties were identified through in vitro mechanical testing. This study develops a novel application of shear wave elasticity imaging to assess porcine brain tissue shear modulus in vivo. Shear wave elasticity imaging is a quantitative ultrasound technique that has been used here to examine changes in brain tissue shear modulus as a function of several experimental and physiologic parameters. Animal studies were performed using two different ultrasound transducers to explore the differences in physical response between closed skull and open skull arrangements. In vivo intracranial pressure in four animals was varied over a relevant physiologic range (2-40 mmHg) and was correlated with shear wave speed and stiffness estimates in brain tissue. We found that stiffness does not vary with modulation of intracranial pressure. Additional in vitro porcine specimens (n = 14) were used to investigate variation in brain tissue stiffness with temperature, confinement, spatial location and transducer orientation. We observed a statistically significant decrease in stiffness with increased temperature (23%) and an increase in stiffness with decreasing external confinement (22-37%). This study determined the feasibility of using shear wave elasticity imaging to characterize porcine brain tissue both in vitro and in vivo. Our results underline the importance of temperature- and skull-derived boundary conditions to brain stiffness and suggest that physiologic ranges of intracranial pressure do not significantly affect in situ brain tissue properties. Shear wave elasticity imaging allowed for brain material properties to be experimentally characterized in a physiologic setting and provides a stronger basis for assessing brain injury in computational models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.