Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33753771›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Transcranial focused ultrasound phase correction using the hybrid angular spectrum method.

Steven A Leung, David Moore, Taylor D Webb, John Snell, Pejman Ghanouni, Kim Butts Pauly

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Aberration correction in abdominal histotripsy.International journal of hyperthermia : the official journal of European Society for Hyperthermic Oncology, North American Hyperthermia Group · 2023
    Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Steven A LeungDepartment of Bioengineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. stevenleung@stanford.edu.
David MooreFocused Ultrasound Foundation, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Taylor D WebbDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
John SnellFocused Ultrasound Foundation, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Pejman GhanouniDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Kim Butts PaulyDepartment of Bioengineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.

Funding

The Impact of FUS-Mediated Brain Cancer Therapy on BBB Transport, Cytokines, and Immunocyte TraffickingR01CA227687 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI BUTTS-PAULY, KIM · 2018 to 2022
$3.1M
MR-guided Focused Ultrasound Neuromodulation of Deep Brain StructuresR01MH111825 · NIMH · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI BUTTS-PAULY, KIM · 2016 to 2019
$1.6M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA227687NIH HHS R01 MH111825NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH111825
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The InSightec Exablate system is the standard of care used for transcranial focused ultrasound ablation treatments in the United States. The system calculates phase corrections that account for aberrations caused by the human skull. This work investigates whether skull aberration correction can be improved by comparing the standard of care InSightec ray tracing method with the hybrid angular spectrum (HAS) method and the gold standard hydrophone method. Three degassed ex vivo human skulls were sonicated with a 670 kHz hemispherical phased array transducer (InSightec Exablate 4000). Phase corrections were calculated using four different methods (straight ray tracing, InSightec ray tracing, HAS, and hydrophone) and were used to drive the transducer. 3D raster scans of the beam profiles were acquired using a hydrophone mounted on a 3-axis positioner system. Focal spots were evaluated using six metrics: pressure at the target, peak pressure, intensity at the target, peak intensity, positioning error, and focal spot volume. For three skulls, the InSightec ray tracing method achieved 52 ± 21% normalized target intensity (normalized to hydrophone), 76 ± 17% normalized peak intensity, and 0.72 ± 0.47 mm positioning error. The HAS method achieved 74 ± 9% normalized target intensity, 81 ± 9% normalized peak intensity, and 0.35 ± 0.09 mm positioning error. The InSightec-to-HAS improvement in focal spot targeting provides promise in improving treatment outcomes. These improvements to skull aberration correction are also highly relevant for the applications of focused ultrasound neuromodulation and blood brain barrier opening, which are currently being translated for human use.

Indexed as

High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound AblationBrainHumansSkullTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID33753771
PMCPMC7985511

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.