ArticleMedical physics2026
A new in silico model to precisely design focused ultrasound brain therapies.
Article in Medical physics, 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.
- The Next Frontier in Quantitative Co-Clinical Imaging to Advance Functional Precision Oncology.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2026Article
- A new in silico model to precisely design focused ultrasound brain therapies.Medical physics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFocused ultrasound (FUS) combined with microbubbles enables transient and noninvasive blood-brain barrier (BBB) opening, facilitating targeted drug delivery. However, accurate treatment planning remains difficult due to inter-patient anatomical variability and the common assumption in simulations that brain tissues behave like water. PURPOSE: To develop and evaluate MODFUS (
methodsMODFUS integrates an anatomical head model comprising 115 tissue types and Computed Tomography (CT)-derived skull properties. FUS simulations were conducted using a 250 kHz single-element transducer at 13 distinct skull entry locations. Two modeling approaches were evaluated: a classical model, in which the skull was embedded in water and brain tissues were homogenized as water, and an heterogeneous anatomical model. To further assess robustness, an additional set of 50 simulations introduced controlled perturbations in probe positioning, consisting of angular deviations (
resultsCompared to the classical "skull+water" benchmark model, the heterogeneous model predicted up to 11% lower PPP, slightly lower PNP (
conclusionsMODFUS demonstrates the influence of incorporating detailed tissue heterogeneity on simulation outcomes, including pressure distribution and potential BBB exposure volume. These results highlight the importance of realistic soft tissue modeling and stereotaxic probe alignment for safe and effective FUS treatment planning. The study serves as a preliminary proof-of-concept. Future studies incorporating in vivo experiments will be required to quantify the accuracy of this approach.
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.