Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36050189›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2022

Benchmark problems for transcranial ultrasound simulation: Intercomparison of compressional wave models.

Jean-Francois Aubry, Oscar Bates, Christian Boehm, Kim Butts Pauly, Douglas Christensen, Carlos Cueto, Pierre Gélat, Lluis Guasch, Jiri Jaros, Yun Jing and 12 more

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 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing 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

46 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Numerical Validation of mSOUND Using Fully Heterogeneous Skull Models.IEEE open journal of ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

22 authors.

Jean-Francois AubryPhysics for Medicine Paris, National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM) U1273, ESPCI Paris, Paris Sciences and Lettres University, French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) UMR 8063, Paris, France.
Oscar BatesDepartment of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, Exhibition Road, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.
Christian BoehmInstitute of Geophysics, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zürich, Sonneggstrasse 5, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland.
Kim Butts PaulyDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA.
Douglas ChristensenDepartment of Biomedical Engineering and Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, USA.
Carlos CuetoDepartment of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, Exhibition Road, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.
Pierre GélatDepartment of Surgical Biotechnology, Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London NW3 2PF, United Kingdom.
Lluis GuaschEarth Science and Engineering Department, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Jiri JarosCentre of Excellence IT4Innovations, Faculty of Information Technology, Brno University of Technology, Bozetechova 2, Brno 612 00, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-0087-8804
Yun JingGraduate Program in Acoustics, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA.
Rebecca JonesJoint Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, USA and North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695, USA.
Ningrui LiDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA.
Patrick MartyInstitute of Geophysics, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zürich, Sonneggstrasse 5, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland.
Hazael MontanaroFoundation for Research on Information Technologies in Society (IT'IS), Zurich, Switzerland.
Esra NeufeldFoundation for Research on Information Technologies in Society (IT'IS), Zurich, Switzerland.
Samuel PichardoRadiology and Clinical Neurosciences Departments, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Gianmarco PintonJoint Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, USA and North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695, USA.
Aki PulkkinenDepartment of Applied Physics, University of Eastern Finland, 70211 Kuopio, Finland.
Antonio StanziolaDepartment of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom.
Axel ThielscherTechnical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.
Bradley TreebyDepartment of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7782-011X
Elwin van 't WoutInstitute for Mathematical and Computational Engineering, School of Engineering and Faculty of Mathematics, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.

Funding

Validation and translation of a non-invasive, MR-guided breast cancer therapyR37CA224141 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI PAYNE, ALLISON · 2018 to 2024
$3.7M
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
Non-Invasive MRI-Guided HIFU for Breast Cancer TherapyR01CA172787 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI PARKER, DENNIS L · 2013 to 2017
$2.7M
Toward the next generation in transcranial MR-guided focused ultrasound: Innovations in thermal and acoustic model-based planning and monitoring for improved safety, efficacy and efficiencyR01EB028316 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI PARKER, DENNIS L, RIEKE, VIOLA · 2019 to 2022
$2.5M
Predoctoral Training in Biomedical Imaging at Stanford UniversityT32EB009653 · NIBIB · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI BUTTS-PAULY, KIM · 2010 to 2019
$2.1M
Improved MRI temperature imaging using a subject-specific biophysical modelR01EB013433 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI PARKER, DENNIS L · 2011 to 2014
$1.8M
Toward an accuracy-efficiency balanced model for modeling high intensity focused ultrasoundR01EB025205 · NIBIB · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, THE · PI JING, YUN · 2018 to 2020
$955k
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA172787NCI NIH HHS R01 CA227687NCI NIH HHS R37 CA224141NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB013433NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB025205NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB028316NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB009653
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computational models of acoustic wave propagation are frequently used in transcranial ultrasound therapy, for example, to calculate the intracranial pressure field or to calculate phase delays to correct for skull distortions. To allow intercomparison between the different modeling tools and techniques used by the community, an international working group was convened to formulate a set of numerical benchmarks. Here, these benchmarks are presented, along with intercomparison results. Nine different benchmarks of increasing geometric complexity are defined. These include a single-layer planar bone immersed in water, a multi-layer bone, and a whole skull. Two transducer configurations are considered (a focused bowl and a plane piston operating at 500 kHz), giving a total of 18 permutations of the benchmarks. Eleven different modeling tools are used to compute the benchmark results. The models span a wide range of numerical techniques, including the finite-difference time-domain method, angular spectrum method, pseudospectral method, boundary-element method, and spectral-element method. Good agreement is found between the models, particularly for the position, size, and magnitude of the acoustic focus within the skull. When comparing results for each model with every other model in a cross-comparison, the median values for each benchmark for the difference in focal pressure and position are less than 10% and 1 mm, respectively. The benchmark definitions, model results, and intercomparison codes are freely available to facilitate further comparisons.

Indexed as

TransducersComputer SimulationSkullUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID36050189
PMCPMC9553291

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.