ArticleIEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control2020
Estimation of Backscatter Coefficients Using an In Situ Calibration Source.
Article in IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward Real-Time Backscatter Coefficient Estimation Incorporating the U-Net Segmentation and an In Vivo Reference Target.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2025Article
- In Vivo Validation of an In Situ Calibration Bead as a Reference for Backscatter Coefficient Calculation.Ultrasound in medicine & biology · 2024Article
- Spectral-based Quantitative Ultrasound Imaging Processing Techniques: Comparisons of RF Versus IQ Approaches.Ultrasonic imaging · 2024Article
- Quantitative Ultrasound: Experimental Implementation.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2023Article
- Ultrasonic backscatter coefficient estimation in nonlinear regime using an in situ calibration target.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2022Article
- Identifying and overcoming limitations with in situ calibration beads for quantitative ultrasound.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The objective of this article is to demonstrate the feasibility of estimating the backscatter coefficient (BSC) using an in situ calibration source. Traditional methods of estimating the BSC in vivo using a reference phantom technique do not account for transmission losses due to intervening layers between the ultrasonic source and the tissue region to be interrogated, leading to increases in bias and variance of BSC-based estimates. To account for transmission losses, an in situ calibration approach is proposed. The in situ calibration technique employs a titanium sphere that is well-characterized ultrasonically, biocompatible, and embedded inside the sample. A set of experiments was conducted to evaluate the embedded titanium spheres as in situ calibration targets for BSC estimation. The first experiment quantified the backscattered signal strength from titanium spheres of three sizes: 0.5, 1, and 2 mm in diameter. The second set of experiments assessed the repeatability of BSC estimates from the titanium spheres and compared these BSCs to theory. The third set of experiments quantified the ability of the titanium bead to provide an in situ reference spectrum in the presence of a lossy layer on top of the sample. The final set of experiments quantified the ability of the bead to provide a calibration spectrum over multiple depths in the sample. All experiments were conducted using an L9-4/38 linear array connected to a SonixOne system. The strongest signal was observed from the 2-mm titanium bead with the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of 11.6 dB with respect to the background speckle. Using an analysis bandwidth of 2.5-5.5 MHz, the mean differences between the experimentally derived BSCs and BSCs derived from the Faran theory were 0.54 and 0.76 dB using the array and a single-element transducer, respectively. The BSCs estimated using the in situ calibration approach without the layer and with the layer and using the reference phantom approach with the layer were compared to the reference phantom approach without the layer present. The mean differences in BSCs were 0.15, 0.73, and -9.69 dB, respectively. The mean differences of the BSCs calculated from data blocks located at depths that were either 30 pulse lengths above or below the actual bead depth compared to the BSC calculated at bead depth were -1.55 and -1.48 dB, respectively. The results indicate that an in situ calibration target can account for overlaying tissue losses, thereby improving the robustness of BSC-based estimates.
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.