ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2016
Validation of Ultrasound Elastography Imaging for Nondestructive Characterization of Stiffer Biomaterials.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2016. 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.
- Ultrasonic High-Resolution Imaging and Acoustic Tweezers Using Ultrahigh Frequency Transducer: Integrative Single-Cell Analysis.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Physics-Informed Machine Learning Improves Detection of Head Impacts.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2022Article
- Quantitative Ultrasound for Nondestructive Characterization of Engineered Tissues and Biomaterials.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ultrasound elastography (UE) has been widely used as a "digital palpation" tool to characterize tissue mechanical properties in the clinic. UE benefits from the capability of noninvasively generating 2-D elasticity encoded maps. This spatial distribution of elasticity can be especially useful in the in vivo assessment of tissue engineering scaffolds and implantable drug delivery platforms. However, the detection limitations have not been fully characterized and thus its true potential has not been completely discovered. Characterization studies have focused primarily on the range of moduli corresponding to soft tissues, 20-600 kPa. However, polymeric biomaterials used in biomedical applications such as tissue scaffolds, stents, and implantable drug delivery devices can be much stiffer. In order to explore UE's potential to assess mechanical properties of biomaterials in a broader range of applications, this work investigated the detection limit of UE strain imaging beyond soft tissue range. To determine the detection limit, measurements using standard mechanical testing and UE on the same polydimethylsiloxane samples were compared and statistically evaluated. The broadest detection range found based on the current optimized setup is between 47 kPa and 4 MPa which exceeds the modulus of normal soft tissue suggesting the possibility of using this technique for stiffer materials' mechanical characterization. The detectable difference was found to be as low as 157 kPa depending on sample stiffness and experimental setup.
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.