Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37030869›Full record

ArticleIEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control2023

Calibrating Data Mismatches in Deep Learning-Based Quantitative Ultrasound Using Setting Transfer Functions.

Ufuk Soylu, Michael L Oelze

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Migration of Deep Learning Models Across Ultrasound Scanners.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2025
    Article
  2. Machine-to-Machine Transfer Function in Deep Learning-Based Quantitative Ultrasound.IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control · 2024
    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.

Ufuk Soylu
Michael L Oelze

Funding

Developing a quantitative ultrasound breast scanner for identifying early response of breast cancer to chemotherapyR01CA273700 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN · PI Gregory Jan Czarnota, Michael L. Oelze · 2022 to 2026
$2.5M
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
Real-time ultrasonic visualization and feedback for focused ultrasound therapyR21EB023403 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN · PI OELZE, MICHAEL L. · 2018 to 2019
$405k
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 CA251939NCI NIH HHS R01 CA273700NIBIB NIH HHS R21 EB023403NIBIB NIH HHS R21 EB024133
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deep learning (DL) can fail when there are data mismatches between training and testing data distributions. Due to its operator-dependent nature, acquisition-related data mismatches, caused by different scanner settings, can occur in ultrasound imaging. As a result, it is crucial to mitigate the effects of these mismatches to enable wider clinical adoption of DL-powered ultrasound imaging and tissue characterization. To address this challenge, we propose an inexpensive and generalizable method that involves collecting a large training set at a single setting and a small calibration set at each scanner setting. Then, the calibration set will be used to calibrate data mismatches by using a signals and systems perspective. We tested the proposed solution to classify two phantoms using an L9-4 array connected to a SonixOne scanner. To investigate generalizability of the proposed solution, we calibrated three types of data mismatches: pulse frequency mismatch, focus mismatch, and output power mismatch. Two well-known convolutional neural networks (CNNs), i.e., ResNet-50 and DenseNet-201, were trained using the ultrasound radio frequency (RF) data. To calibrate the setting mismatches, we calculated the setting transfer functions. The CNNs trained without calibration resulted in mean classification accuracies of around 52%, 84%, and 85% for pulse frequency, focus, and output power mismatches, respectively. By using the setting transfer functions, which allowed a matching of the training and testing domains, we obtained the mean accuracies of 96%, 96%, and 98%, respectively. Therefore, the incorporation of the setting transfer functions between scanner settings can provide an economical means of generalizing a DL model for specific classification tasks where scanner settings are not fixed by the operator.

Indexed as

Deep LearningCalibrationNeural Networks, ComputerUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID37030869
PMCPMC10334367

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.