ArticleScientific reports2025
A novel method for acoustic modeling of cranial bone based on the porosity index.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Transcranial ultrasound stimulation (TUS) has emerged as a clinically validated neuromodulation technique. Particularly, phased array ultrasound can be applied in TUS to focus on the cortex or deep brain non-invasively, such as the ventral intermediate thalamic nucleus (VIM) and Precuneus (PCu) region for the treatment of essential tremor (ET) and Alzheimer Disease (AD). Current TUS treatment planning relies on computed tomography (CT)-derived skull porosity measurements, which involve patient radiation exposure and potential registration errors. This study proposes a Porosity Index (PI)-based method, derived from Ultrashort Echo Time (UTE) Magnetic Resonance (MR) images, for establishing skull acoustic models as a viable alternative, aiming to eliminate these limitations. Acoustic simulations using the K-Wave open-source platform were performed to validate the PI method's accuracy in predicting skull porosity and simulating focal distributions compared to CT. Focal spot characteristics were quantified using five metrics: peak intensity, target intensity, focal positioning error, Dice similarity coefficient, and Pearson correlation coefficient between CT- and PI-based simulation results. Statistical differences between these metrics were assessed using Tukey's multiple comparisons test. Quantitative comparisons against the gold-standard CT approach demonstrated comparable performance in peak focal intensity (deviation < 5%) and spatial pressure distribution patterns (Dice coefficient > 0.82). No significant differences (p > 0.05) were observed for any of the evaluated metrics. Our findings demonstrate that both the sound pressure distribution and prediction of the porosity are comparable with those from the reference CT. Using the PI to replace the traditional CT porosity has high feasibility and can achieve the purpose of reducing unnecessary radiation exposure and registration error for patients.
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.