ArticleIEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control2021
Evaluating Input Domain and Model Selection for Deep Network Ultrasound Beamforming.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Supervised segmentation for guiding peripheral revascularization with forward-viewing, robotically steered ultrasound guidewire.Medical physics · 2023Article
- Deep Learning for Ultrasound Image Formation: CUBDL Evaluation Framework and Open Datasets.IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control · 2021Article
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
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
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.