ArticleJournal of medical ultrasonics (2001)2020
Validation of differences in backscatter coefficients among four ultrasound scanners with different beamforming methods.
Article in Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001), 2020. 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Clutter Filter in High-Frame-Rate Ultrasonic Backscatter Coefficient Analysis.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Backscatter properties of two-layer phantoms using a high-frequency ultrasound annular array.Japanese journal of applied physics (2008) · 2022Article
- On the publication of the special feature on recent progress in basic research useful for the interpretation of ultrasound diagnostic images.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2021Article
- Improved evaluation of backscatter characteristics of soft tissue using high-frequency annular array.Japanese journal of applied physics (2008) · 2020Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe backscatter coefficient (BSC) indicates the absolute scatterer property of a material, independently of clinicians and system settings. Our study verified that the BSC differed among the scanners, transducers, and beamforming methods used for quantitative ultrasound analyses of biological tissues.
methodsMeasurements were performed on four tissue-mimicking homogeneous phantoms containing spherical scatterers with mean diameters of 20 and 30 µm prepared at concentrations of 0.5 and 2.0 wt%, respectively. The BSCs in the different systems were compared using ultrasound scanners with two single-element transducers and five linear high- or low-frequency probes. The beamforming methods were line-by-line formation using focused imaging (FI) and parallel beam formation using plane wave imaging (PWI). The BSC of each system was calculated by the reference phantom method. The mean deviation from the theoretical BSC computed by the Faran model was analyzed as the benchmark validation of the calculated BSC.
resultsThe BSCs calculated in systems with different properties and beamforming methods well concurred with the theoretical BSC. The mean deviation was below ± 2.8 dB on average, and within the approximate standard deviation (± 2.2 dB at most) in all cases. These variations agreed with a previous study in which the largest error among four different scanners with FI beamforming was 3.5 dB.
conclusionThe BSC in PWI was equivalent to those in the other systems and to those of FI beamforming. This result indicates the possibility of ultra-high frame-rate BSC analysis using PWI.
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.