Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32396084›Full record

ArticleIEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control2020

Deep Learning to Obtain Simultaneous Image and Segmentation Outputs From a Single Input of Raw Ultrasound Channel Data.

Arun Asokan Nair, Kendra N Washington, Trac D Tran, Austin Reiter, Muyinatu A Lediju Bell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Feature Extraction of Ultrasound Radiofrequency Data for the Classification of the Peripheral Zone of Human Prostate.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Deep Learning for Ultrasound Image Formation: CUBDL Evaluation Framework and Open Datasets.IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control · 2021
    Article
  17. Upstream Machine Learning in Radiology.Radiologic clinics of North America · 2021
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Evaluating Input Domain and Model Selection for Deep Network Ultrasound Beamforming.IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control · 2021
    Article
  20. Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Displacement Estimation in ARFI Imaging.IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control · 2021
    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

5 authors.

Arun Asokan Nair
Kendra N Washington
Trac D Tran
Austin Reiter
Muyinatu A Lediju Bell

Funding

A Machine Learning Alternative to Beamforming to Improve Ultrasound Image Quality for Interventional Access to the KidneyR21EB025621 · NIBIB · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI BELL, MUYINATU A. LEDIJU · 2018 to 2021
$859k
NIBIB NIH HHS R21 EB025621
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Single plane wave transmissions are promising for automated imaging tasks requiring high ultrasound frame rates over an extended field of view. However, a single plane wave insonification typically produces suboptimal image quality. To address this limitation, we are exploring the use of deep neural networks (DNNs) as an alternative to delay-and-sum (DAS) beamforming. The objectives of this work are to obtain information directly from raw channel data and to simultaneously generate both a segmentation map for automated ultrasound tasks and a corresponding ultrasound B-mode image for interpretable supervision of the automation. We focus on visualizing and segmenting anechoic targets surrounded by tissue and ignoring or deemphasizing less important surrounding structures. DNNs trained with Field II simulations were tested with simulated, experimental phantom, and in vivo data sets that were not included during training. With unfocused input channel data (i.e., prior to the application of receive time delays), simulated, experimental phantom, and in vivo test data sets achieved mean ± standard deviation Dice similarity coefficients of 0.92 ± 0.13, 0.92 ± 0.03, and 0.77 ± 0.07, respectively, and generalized contrast-to-noise ratios (gCNRs) of 0.95 ± 0.08, 0.93 ± 0.08, and 0.75 ± 0.14, respectively. With subaperture beamformed channel data and a modification to the input layer of the DNN architecture to accept these data, the fidelity of image reconstruction increased (e.g., mean gCNR of multiple acquisitions of two in vivo breast cysts ranged 0.89-0.96), but DNN display frame rates were reduced from 395 to 287 Hz. Overall, the DNNs successfully translated feature representations learned from simulated data to phantom and in vivo data, which is promising for this novel approach to simultaneous ultrasound image formation and segmentation.

Indexed as

Deep LearningAlgorithmsBreastBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedPhantoms, ImagingUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID32396084
PMCPMC7990652

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.