ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Multidimensional Quality Evaluation of Imaging Performance for Musculoskeletal Ultrasound Computed Tomography System.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Core parameters of the Musculoskeletal Ultrasound Computed Tomography System (MUCTS), such as spatial resolution, slice thickness, and three-dimensional reconstruction volume error, directly determine imaging performance and clinical diagnostic accuracy. To objectively and systematically assess the imaging quality and diagnostic reliability of this device, this study took the MUCTS developed by Weishi Medical Imaging Co., Ltd., as the test object. Multidimensional performance tests were carried out using standard ultrasound phantoms and polyurethane-based tissue-mimicking musculoskeletal phantoms. Under unified imaging and reconstruction parameters, key indicators, including effective detection radius, axial resolution, lateral resolution, imaging dead zone, slice thickness, geometric position accuracy, and three-dimensional reconstruction volume error, were quantitatively measured, and compliance verification was performed against product technical specifications. The test results demonstrated that the nominal center frequency was 3 MHz with a measured frequency deviation of 3%, and the effective detection radius reached 90 mm. Within the valid imaging range, the axial resolution was 0.5 mm, lateral resolution was 1 mm, imaging dead zone was 1 mm, and slice thickness was 3.2 mm. The relative error of geometric position accuracy was 3%, the relative deviations in perimeter and area measurements were both -1%, and the relative deviation in three-dimensional reconstructed volume was -8%. All indicators satisfied product technical requirements. Qualitative comparative experiments on tissue-mimicking phantoms confirmed that the system could reproduce multiscale and multi-contrast musculoskeletal anatomical features, and the acquired images showed favorable consistency with designed phantom targets. In conclusion, this musculoskeletal ultrasound tomographic system exhibits stable imaging performance and credible quantitative measurements, and can meet clinical and research demands for tomographic imaging and three-dimensional reconstruction of human musculoskeletal tissues.
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.