ReviewUltrasound in medicine & biology2026
A Systematized Review of Quantitative Ultrasound Techniques for Brain Tissue Characterization.
Review in Ultrasound in medicine & biology, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Since 1968, acoustic characterization has been used to assess brain tissue properties. This modality has provided critical insights into microstructural characteristics that have not yet been widely translated into clinical practice. This systematized literature review synthesizes advancements in quantitative ultrasound (QUS) techniques for brain tissue characterization, focusing on their potential and current limitations as neuroimaging tools. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus and digital libraries identified 115 publications; after applying the inclusion criteria, 35 were analyzed. The studies were categorized by QUS feature: speed of sound, attenuation, backscatter and speckle statistics, and by experimental model (phantoms, preclinical, human ex vivo and in vivo). Attenuation was the most frequently investigated feature (40% of the total dataset), followed by speed of sound, backscatter and speckle statistics. For the 4 QUS features, most studies were conducted in preclinical settings, highlighting the limited clinical translation of QUS for the brain. Beyond summarizing current evidence, this review examines the methodological and practical barriers to reproducibility, including variability in acquisition protocols, system-dependent signal processing and beamformer assumptions, the lack of reference standards and the absence of calibration frameworks. It also identifies future research opportunities, such as developing traceable phantoms, establishing open repositories of reference phantoms and clinical data and coordinating efforts among research, clinicians, industry and regulatory agencies. This review contextualizes the potential and significance of QUS in brain characterization and outlines the steps needed to establish it as a reliable, quantitative and clinically meaningful neuroimaging modality.
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.