Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37226240›Full record

ArticleBiomedical engineering online2023

A comparison of point-tracking algorithms in ultrasound videos from the upper limb.

Uriel Magana-Salgado, Praneeth Namburi, Micha Feigin-Almon, Roger Pallares-Lopez, Brian Anthony

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomedical engineering online, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Uriel Magana-Salgado *Department of Mechanical Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA.
Praneeth Namburi *Institute for Medical Engineering and Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Ave, 12-3211, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA. praneeth@mit.edu.
Micha Feigin-AlmonDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA.
Roger Pallares-LopezDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA.
Brian AnthonyDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tracking points in ultrasound (US) videos can be especially useful to characterize tissues in motion. Tracking algorithms that analyze successive video frames, such as variations of Optical Flow and Lucas-Kanade (LK), exploit frame-to-frame temporal information to track regions of interest. In contrast, convolutional neural-network (CNN) models process each video frame independently of neighboring frames. In this paper, we show that frame-to-frame trackers accumulate error over time. We propose three interpolation-like methods to combat error accumulation and show that all three methods reduce tracking errors in frame-to-frame trackers. On the neural-network end, we show that a CNN-based tracker, DeepLabCut (DLC), outperforms all four frame-to-frame trackers when tracking tissues in motion. DLC is more accurate than the frame-to-frame trackers and less sensitive to variations in types of tissue movement. The only caveat found with DLC comes from its non-temporal tracking strategy, leading to jitter between consecutive frames. Overall, when tracking points in videos of moving tissue, we recommend using DLC when prioritizing accuracy and robustness across movements in videos, and using LK with the proposed error-correction methods for small movements when tracking jitter is unacceptable.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsNeural Networks, ComputerMotionUltrasonographyUpper ExtremityNeural network trackingOpenCVPoint trackingTracking correctionUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID37226240
PMCPMC10207829

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.