ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Quantitative Shear Wave Elastography: A Phantom-Based Comparison of Two Ultrasound Systems.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate cross-platform measurement consistency and diagnostic threshold requirements in shear wave elastography (SWE), this study presents a robotically controlled, phantom-based validation framework to quantify and interpret inter-vendor variability that limits clinical standardisation. A custom-fabricated polyvinyl chloride-graphite phantom containing eight spherical inclusions (15-25 mm diameter, 25-95 mm depth, 23.53-259.58 kPa stiffness), representing breast tissue mechanical properties, was evaluated using Samsung HS50 and Aixplorer ultrasound systems. Robotic automation standardised probe positioning and contact, eliminating operator-dependent variability and enabling direct, system-level comparison. Cross-platform reproducibility, accuracy against mechanically validated ground truth, and diagnostic threshold performance were assessed across 80 measurements. Both systems demonstrated excellent intra-machine reproducibility (coefficient of variation: Samsung 0.42%, Aixplorer 0.46%) with strong inter-machine correlation (r = 0.9951,
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.