Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33684036›Full record

ArticleIEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control2021

Evaluating Input Domain and Model Selection for Deep Network Ultrasound Beamforming.

Jaime Tierney, Adam Luchies, Matthew Berger, Brett Byram

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Deep Learning for Ultrasound Image Formation: CUBDL Evaluation Framework and Open Datasets.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

4 authors.

Jaime Tierney
Adam Luchies
Matthew Berger
Brett Byram

Funding

Suppression and Analysis of Ultrasonic Clutter During Liver Focal Lesion BiopsyR01EB020040 · NIBIB · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI BYRAM, BRETT C · 2016 to 2019
$1.3M
Parallel Computer with High Memory NodesS10OD016216 · OD · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI PISTON, DAVID W · 2013 to 2013
$598k
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB020040NIH HHS S10 OD016216
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Improving ultrasound B-mode image quality remains an important area of research. Recently, there has been increased interest in using deep neural networks (DNNs) to perform beamforming to improve image quality more efficiently. Several approaches have been proposed that use different representations of channel data for network processing, including a frequency-domain approach that we previously developed. We previously assumed that the frequency domain would be more robust to varying pulse shapes. However, frequency- and time-domain implementations have not been directly compared. In addition, because our approach operates on aperture domain data as an intermediate beamforming step, a discrepancy often exists between network performance and image quality on fully reconstructed images, making model selection challenging. Here, we perform a systematic comparison of frequency- and time-domain implementations. In addition, we propose a contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR)-based regularization to address previous challenges with model selection. Training channel data were generated from simulated anechoic cysts. Test channel data were generated from simulated anechoic cysts with and without varied pulse shapes, in addition to physical phantom and in vivo data. We demonstrate that simplified time-domain implementations are more robust than we previously assumed, especially when using phase preserving data representations. Specifically, 0.39- and 0.36-dB median improvements in in vivo CNR compared to DAS were achieved with frequency- and time-domain implementations, respectively. We also demonstrate that CNR regularization improves the correlation between training validation loss and simulated CNR by 0.83 and between simulated and in vivo CNR by 0.35 compared to DNNs trained without CNR regularization.

Indexed as

CystsImage Processing, Computer-AssistedHumansNeural Networks, ComputerPhantoms, ImagingUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID33684036
PMCPMC8285087

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.