Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35778186›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2022

Ultrasonic backscatter coefficient estimation in nonlinear regime using an in situ calibration target.

Andres Coila, Michael L Oelze

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Andres CoilaBeckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2924-3888
Michael L OelzeBeckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3099-7425

Funding

Use of Radiological Clips for Improving Quantitative Ultrasound ImagingR01CA251939 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN · PI OELZE, MICHAEL L. · 2020 to 2024
$2.0M
Development of super resolution ultrasound for detecting microcalcificationsR21EB024133 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN · PI OELZE, MICHAEL L. · 2018 to 2019
$403k
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA251939NIBIB NIH HHS R21 EB024133
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tissue characterization based on the backscatter coefficient (BSC) can be degraded by acoustic nonlinearity. Often, this degradation is due to the method used for obtaining a reference spectrum, i.e., using a planar reference in water compared to a reference phantom approach resulted in more degradation. We hypothesize that an in situ calibration approach can improve BSC estimates in the nonlinear regime compared to using the reference phantom approach. The in situ calibration target provides a reference within the medium being interrogated and, therefore, nonlinear effects would already be contained in the in situ reference signal. Simulations and experiments in phantoms and in vivo were performed. A 2 mm diameter titanium bead was embedded in the interrogated media. An L9-4/38 probe (BK Ultrasound, Peabody, MA) and an analysis bandwidth from 4.5 to 7.4 MHz were used in experiments. Radiofrequency data from the sample, bead, and reference phantoms were acquired at a quasi-linear baseline power level and at further increments of output power. Better agreement between the BSC obtained at low power compared to high power was observed for the in situ calibration compared to the reference phantom approach.

Indexed as

AcousticsUltrasonicsCalibrationPhantoms, ImagingUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID35778186
PMCPMC9239729

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.