ArticleScientific reports2021
Optimally-weighted non-linear beamformer for conventional focused beam ultrasound imaging systems.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A novel non-linear beamforming method, namely, filtered delay optimally-weighted multiply and sum (F-DowMAS) beamforming is reported for conventional focused beamforming (CFB) technique. The performance of F-DowMAS was compared against delay and sum (DAS), filtered delay multiply and sum (F-DMAS), filtered delay weight multiply and sum (F-DwMAS) and filter delay Euclidian weighted multiply and sum (F-DewMAS) methods. Notably, in the proposed method the optimal adaptive weights are computed for each imaging point to compensate for the effects due to spatial variations in beam pattern in CFB technique. F-DowMAS, F-DMAS, and DAS were compared in terms of the resulting image quality metrics, Lateral resolution (LR), axial resolution (AR), contrast ratio (CR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), estimated from experiments on a commercially available tissue-mimicking phantom. The results demonstrate that F-DowMAS improved the AR by 57.04% and 46.95%, LR by 58.21% and 53.40%, CR by 67.35% and 39.25%, and CNR by 44.04% and 30.57% compared to those obtained using DAS and F-DMAS, respectively. Thus, it can be concluded that the newly proposed F-DowMAS outperforms DAS and F-DMAS. As an aside, we also show that the optimal weighting strategy can be extended to benefit DAS.
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.