ArticleUltrasonics2021
Amplitude based segmentation of ultrasound echoes for attenuation coefficient estimation.
Article in Ultrasonics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of acquisition geometry on ultrasound-derived fat fraction measurements: implications for standardized acquisition and measurement interchangeability.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Ultrasound Attenuation Coefficient as a Biomarker of Hepatic Steatosis: State of the Art and Software Evaluation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Recent Advances in Attenuation Estimation.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2023Article
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
In vivo ultrasound attenuation coefficient measurements are of interest as they can provide insight into tissue pathology. They are also needed so that measurements of the tissue's frequency dependent ultrasound backscattering coefficient may be corrected for attenuation. In vivo measurements of the attenuation coefficient are challenging because it has to be estimated from the depth dependent decay of backscatter signals that display a large degree of magnitude variation. In this study we describe and evaluate an improved backscatter method to estimate ultrasound attenuation which is tolerant to the presence of some backscatter inhomogeneity. This employs an automated algorithm to segment and remove atypically strong echoes to lessen the potential bias these may introduce on the attenuation coefficient estimates. The benefit of the algorithm was evaluated by measuring the frequency dependent attenuation coefficient of a gelatine phantom containing randomly distributed cellulose scatterers as a homogeneous backscattering component and planar pieces of cooked leek to provide backscattering inhomogeneities. In the phantom the segmentation algorithm was found to improve the accuracy and precision of attenuation coefficient estimates by up to 80% and 90%, respectively. The effect of the algorithm was then measured invivo using 32 radiofrequency B-mode datasets from the breasts of two healthy female volunteers, producing a 5 to 25% reduction in mean attenuation coefficient estimates and a 30 to 50% reduction in standard deviation of attenuation coefficient across different positions within each breast. The results suggest that the segmentation algorithm may improve the accuracy and precision of attenuation coefficient estimates invivo.
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.