Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30911878›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2019

Learning needle tip localization from digital subtraction in 2D ultrasound.

Cosmas Mwikirize, John L Nosher, Ilker Hacihaliloglu

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Localization in Medical Images.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2022
    Review
  5. Time-aware deep neural networks for needle tip localization in 2D ultrasound.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2021
    Article
  6. Enhancement of needle visualization and localization in ultrasound.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2021
    Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Cosmas MwikirizeDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA. cosmas.mwikirize@rutgers.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3393-2758
John L NosherDepartment of Radiology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, 08901, USA.
Ilker HacihalilogluDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA.
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis paper addresses localization of needles inserted both in-plane and out-of-plane in challenging ultrasound-guided interventions where the shaft and tip have low intensity. Our approach combines a novel digital subtraction scheme for enhancement of low-level intensity changes caused by tip movement in the ultrasound image and a state-of-the-art deep learning scheme for tip detection.

methodsAs the needle tip moves through tissue, it causes subtle spatiotemporal variations in intensity. Relying on these intensity changes, we formulate a foreground detection scheme for enhancing the tip from consecutive ultrasound frames. The tip is augmented by solving a spatial total variation regularization problem using the split Bregman method. Lastly, we filter irrelevant motion events with a deep learning-based end-to-end data-driven method that models the appearance of the needle tip in ultrasound images, resulting in needle tip detection.

resultsThe detection model is trained and evaluated on an extensive ex vivo dataset collected with 17G and 22G needles inserted in-plane and out-of-plane in bovine, porcine and chicken phantoms. We use 5000 images extracted from 20 video sequences for training and 1000 images from 10 sequences for validation. The overall framework is evaluated on 700 images from 20 sequences not used in training and validation, and achieves a tip localization error of 0.72 ± 0.04 mm and an overall processing time of 0.094 s per frame (~ 10 frames per second).

conclusionThe proposed method is faster and more accurate than state of the art and is resilient to spatiotemporal redundancies. The promising results demonstrate its potential for accurate needle localization in challenging ultrasound-guided interventions.

Indexed as

NeedlesAnimalsBiopsyCattleChickensMotionPhantoms, ImagingSwineUltrasonography, InterventionalDeep learningMinimally invasive proceduresNeedle tip localizationUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID30911878
OpenAlexW2922759892

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.