ArticleIEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control2024
Machine-to-Machine Transfer Function in Deep Learning-Based Quantitative Ultrasound.
Article in IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control, 2024. 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.
- Migration of Deep Learning Models Across Ultrasound Scanners.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A transfer function approach was recently demonstrated to mitigate data mismatches at the acquisition level for a single ultrasound scanner in deep learning (DL)-based quantitative ultrasound (QUS). As a natural progression, we further investigate the transfer function approach and introduce a machine-to-machine (M2M) transfer function, which possesses the ability to mitigate data mismatches at a machine level. This ability opens the door to unprecedented opportunities for reducing DL model development costs, enabling the combination of data from multiple sources or scanners, or facilitating the transfer of DL models between machines. We tested the proposed method utilizing a SonixOne machine and a Verasonics machine with an L9-4 array and an L11-5 array. We conducted two types of acquisitions to obtain calibration data: stable and free-hand, using two different calibration phantoms. Without the proposed method, the mean classification accuracy when applying a model on data acquired from one system to data acquired from another system was 50%, and the mean average area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) was 0.405. With the proposed method, mean accuracy increased to 99%, and the AUC rose to the 0.999. Additional observations include the choice of the calibration phantom led to statistically significant changes in the performance of the proposed method. Moreover, robust implementation inspired by Wiener filtering provided an effective method for transferring the domain from one machine to another machine, and it can succeed using just a single calibration view. Lastly, the proposed method proved effective when a different transducer was used in the test machine.
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.