ArticleMedical physics2016
Comparison of three dimensional strain volume reconstructions using SOUPR and wobbler based acquisitions: A phantom study.
Article in Medical physics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Geometry aware neural radiance fields for freehand ultrasound reconstruction.Biomedical physics & engineering express · 2026Article
- Sensorless End-to-End Freehand 3-D Ultrasound Reconstruction With Physics-Guided Deep Learning.IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control · 2024Article
- Three-dimensional clinical handheld photoacoustic/ultrasound scanner.Photoacoustics · 2020Article
- A kernel smoothing algorithm for ablation visualization in ultrasound elastography.Ultrasonics · 2019Article
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
purposeUltrasound strain imaging is a relatively low cost and portable modality for monitoring percutaneous thermal ablation of liver neoplasms. However, a 3D strain volume reconstruction from existing 2D strain images is necessary to fully delineate the thermal dose distribution. Tissue mimicking (TM) phantom experiments were performed to validate a novel volume reconstruction algorithm referred to as sheaf of ultrasound planes reconstruction (SOUPR), based on a series of 2D rotational imaging planes.
methodsReconstruction using SOUPR was formulated as an optimization problem with constraints on data consistency with 2D strain images and data smoothness of the volume data. Reconstructed ablation inclusion dimensions, volume, and elastographic signal to noise ratio (SNRe) and contrast to noise ratio (CNRe) were compared with conventional 3D ultrasound strain imaging based on interpolating a series of quasiparallel 2D strain images with a wobbler transducer.
resultsVolume estimates of the phantom inclusion were in a similar range for both acquisition approaches. SNRe and CNRe obtained with SOUPR were significantly higher on the order of 250% and 166%, respectively. The mean error of the inclusion dimension reconstructed with a wobbler transducer was on the order of 10.4%, 3.5%, and 19.0% along the X, Y, and Z axes, respectively, while the error with SOUPR was on the order of 2.6%, 2.8%, and 9.6%. A qualitative comparison of SOUPR and wobbler reconstruction was also performed using a thermally ablated region created in ex vivo bovine liver tissue.
conclusionsThe authors have demonstrated using experimental evaluations with a TM phantom that the reconstruction results obtained with SOUPR were superior when compared with a conventional wobbler transducer in terms of inclusion shape preservation and detectability.
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.