ArticleUltrasonics2023
Enhancing sizing accuracy in ultrasound images with an alternative ADMIRE model and dynamic range considerations.
Article in Ultrasonics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Expanding generalized contrast-to-noise ratio into a clinically relevant measure of lesion detectability by considering size and spatial resolution.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ultrasound imaging can struggle with sizing accuracy, especially when the targets have a significantly different amplitude compared to the surrounding background. In this work, we consider the challenging task of accurately sizing hyperechoic structures, and specifically kidney stones, where accurate sizing is critical for determining medical intervention. AD-Ex, an extended alternative model of our aperture domain model image reconstruction (ADMIRE) pre-processing method, is introduced and is designed to improve clutter removal and improve sizing accuracy. We compare this method against other resolution enhancing methods such as minimum variance (MV) and generalized coherence factor (GCF), and against those methods using AD-Ex as a pre-processing tool. These methods are evaluated among patients with kidney stone disease, with the task of accurately sizing the stones against the gold standard, computed tomography (CT). Stone ROI's were selected using contour maps as reference from which the lateral stone size was estimated. Among the in vivo kidney stone cases we processed, AD-Ex+MV had the overall lowest sizing error among the methods, with an average error of 10.8% compared to the next best method AD-Ex which had an average error of 23.4%. For reference, DAS had an average error of 82.4%. Though dynamic range was evaluated to determine optimal thresholding for sizing applications, variability between stone cases was too high for any conclusions to be drawn at this time.
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.