ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2015
Conventional, Bayesian, and Modified Prony's methods for characterizing fast and slow waves in equine cancellous bone.
Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrasonic Assessment of Cancellous Bone Based on the Two-Wave Phenomenon.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2022Article
- Scattering in Cancellous Bone.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2022Article
- Mechanisms of Interaction of Ultrasound With Cancellous Bone: A Review.IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Conventional, Bayesian, and the modified least-squares Prony's plus curve-fitting (MLSP + CF) methods were applied to data acquired using 1 MHz center frequency, broadband transducers on a single equine cancellous bone specimen that was systematically shortened from 11.8 mm down to 0.5 mm for a total of 24 sample thicknesses. Due to overlapping fast and slow waves, conventional analysis methods were restricted to data from sample thicknesses ranging from 11.8 mm to 6.0 mm. In contrast, Bayesian and MLSP + CF methods successfully separated fast and slow waves and provided reliable estimates of the ultrasonic properties of fast and slow waves for sample thicknesses ranging from 11.8 mm down to 3.5 mm. Comparisons of the three methods were carried out for phase velocity at the center frequency and the slope of the attenuation coefficient for the fast and slow waves. Good agreement among the three methods was also observed for average signal loss at the center frequency. The Bayesian and MLSP + CF approaches were able to separate the fast and slow waves and provide good estimates of the fast and slow wave properties even when the two wave modes overlapped in both time and frequency domains making conventional analysis methods unreliable.
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.