ArticleUltrasound in medicine & biology2025
Three-Dimensional Shear-Wave Viscoelastographic Estimation by System Identification for Prostate Cancer Localization.
Article in Ultrasound in medicine & biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cross-plane shear wave elastography for viscoelasticity imaging.Physics in medicine and biology · 2026Article
- Development of a quantitative multiparametric ultrasound and deep learning classifier for the detection of prostate cancer.European radiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to estimate viscosity in vivo in the prostate using shear-wave elastography (SWE) and to evaluate its potential, alongside elasticity, for prostate cancer (PCa) localization.
methodsA cohort of 197 patients referred for radical prostatectomy at four Dutch hospitals underwent three-dimensional (3D) SWE scans. From the acquired data, voxel-based viscosity and shear-wave (SW) velocity were computed using a system identification (SI) approach. SW velocity was also calculated using the standard SW cross-correlation for comparison. Elasticity can be derived from SW velocity. Following a registration procedure, the 3D histopathological results served as ground truth. We then trained a convolutional neural network for each individual feature combined with the prostate mask. The performance was evaluated using cross-validated receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.
resultsBoth elasticity and viscosity were significantly higher in malignant prostate regions compared to benign regions (Mann-Whitney U test). The area under the ROC curve (AUC) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for voxel-wise PCa detection by viscosity from SI, SW velocity from SI, and SW velocity from cross-correlation were 0.68 (95% CI: 0.66, 0.70), 0.67 (95% CI: 0.65, 0.70), and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.65, 0.69), respectively.
conclusionWe are the first to report in-vivo voxel-based viscosity of the prostate using SWE. Combining viscosity with elasticity did not significantly improve PCa detection, likely due to system limitations, acquisition noise, and modeling simplifications. However, in 197 prostates, viscosity alone achieved an AUC comparable to that of elasticity for PCa localization, indicating its potential as a powerful adjunctive biomarker.
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.