ArticleUltrasound in medicine & biology2024
Harmonic Motion Imaging-Guided Focused Ultrasound Ablation: Comparison of Three Focused Ultrasound Interference Filtering Methods.
Article in Ultrasound in medicine & biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrasound Imaging: A Cornerstone of the Entire High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Tumor Treatment Continuum.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A Multimodal Ultrasound-Driven Approach for Automated Tumor Assessment With B-Mode and Multi-Frequency Harmonic Motion Images.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2026Article
- Image-Based Monitoring of Thermal Ablation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveHarmonic motion imaging (HMI) is an acoustic radiation force-based elasticity imaging technique, which can be used to monitor changes in tissue mechanical properties caused by focused ultrasound (FUS)-induced thermal ablation. In conventional HMI, the amplitude-modulated FUS sequence and imaging pulse are transmitted simultaneously. With this method, the high-amplitude FUS signal must be separated from the imaging data for tissue displacement estimation. Frequency domain notch filtering and bandpass filtering were previously used to filter FUS interference from imaging data. However, FUS interference becomes more pronounced at the increased intensities and durations necessary for thermal ablation, rendering frequency domain filtering challenging. In this study, three methods for FUS interference filtering during HMI-guided FUS ablation (HMIgFUS) were compared. The methods were notch filtering; interleaved HMIgFUS, with interleaved FUS and imaging pulses; and FUS-net, a convolutional neural network-based U-Net autoencoder developed by our group for FUS interference filtering in radiofrequency data. FUS-net was applied here for the first time for the purpose of ablation displacement monitoring.
methodsThe three filtering methods were tested during 20 HMIgFUS acquisitions in an ex vivo canine liver using a range of peak positive pressures from 11 to 18 MPa and durations ranging from 60 to 180 seconds. The B-mode mean squared errors (MSEs) and displacement amplitude contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) of the three methods were calculated and compared.
resultsThe interleaved method for HMIgFUS was found to be significantly robust in avoiding FUS interference in all tested cases for FUS ablation monitoring, especially cases with high FUS pressure and long durations, as opposed to traditional notch filtering and FUS-net filtering. CNRs obtained from displacement amplitude maps in the interleaved data set were significantly higher in all cases than those obtained from the notch filtered and FUS-net data sets. There was not a significant trend in displacement CNR between the FUS-net and notch filtered data sets. However, B-mode MSE was found to be significantly higher when comparing the FUS-net and interleaved data sets as opposed to the notch filtered and interleaved data sets, suggesting further potential of FUS-net as an FUS interference filtering method.
conclusionThese findings indicate the robustness of interleaved HMIgFUS in avoiding FUS interference during HMIgFUS monitoring and the advantages, limitations and future potential of FUS-net and notch filtering.
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.