ArticleMedical physics2026
Applying a portable pocket handheld ultrasound scanner to monitor tumor volume in preclinical studies.
Article in Medical physics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCalipers remain the most common method for monitoring tumor volume in preclinical studies, despite known geometric limitations that can lead to substantial measurement error, particularly for irregularly shaped tumors. Portable handheld ultrasound (US) devices have recently become more accessible and may provide a practical alternative; however, their quantitative performance in routine small-animal workflows has not been fully characterized. PURPOSE: To evaluate whether a low-cost handheld US probe is suitable for routine preclinical tumor-volume measurement and to quantify its accuracy relative to calipers using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-derived volumes as the reference standard.
methodsFive BALB/c and five C57BL/6J mice (n = 10) bearing subcutaneous CT26 (colorectal) or LLC1 (lung) tumors were measured on day 14 post-inoculation using digital calipers and a handheld US probe. Tumor volumes were estimated using caliper-derived length × width (L×W_Cal), US-derived length × width (L×W_US), US-derived length × width × depth (L×W×D_US), and an US-based region-of-interest method (ROI_US). Excised tumors were imaged with CBCT and segmented to obtain reference volumes. Volumes were normalized to CBCT and analyzed using nonparametric repeated-measures statistics (Friedman test with Holm-Bonferroni-corrected Wilcoxon signed-rank tests; significance defined as adjusted p < 0.05). Effect sizes were calculated using the rank-biserial correlation coefficient.
resultsCBCT tumor volumes ranged from 30-170 mm
conclusionsIn this preclinical cohort, handheld US reduced systematic volumetric overestimation relative to calipers and demonstrated improved agreement with CBCT-derived reference volumes. ROI-based US analysis yielded the lowest absolute error. These findings support the use of portable US as a more accurate alternative to calipers for tumor-volume monitoring in small-animal studies.
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.