Literature DB >> 20690431

Interlaboratory comparison of backscatter coefficient estimates for tissue-mimicking phantoms.

Janelle J Anderson1, Maria-Teresa Herd, Michael R King, Alexander Haak, Zachary T Hafez, Jun Song, Michael L Oelze, Ernest L Madsen, James A Zagzebski, William D O'Brien, Timothy J Hall.   

Abstract

Ultrasonic backscatter is useful for characterizing tissues and several groups have reported methods for estimating backscattering properties. Previous interlaboratory comparisons have been made to test the ability to accurately estimate the backscatter coefficient (BSC) by different laboratories around the world. Results of these comparisons showed variability in BSC estimates but were acquired only for a relatively narrow frequency range, and, most importantly, lacked reference to any independent predictions from scattering theory. The goal of this study was to compare Faran-scattering-theory predictions with cooperatively-measured backscatter coefficients for low-attenuating and tissue-like attenuating phantoms containing glass sphere scatterers of different sizes for which BSCs can independently be predicted. Ultrasonic backscatter measurementswere made for frequencies from 1 to 12 MHz. Backscatter coefficients were estimated using two different planar-reflector techniques at two laboratories for two groups of phantoms. Excellent agreement was observed between BSC estimates from both laboratories. In addition, good agreement with the predictions of Faran's theory was obtained, with average fractional (bias) errors ranging from 8-14%. This interlaboratory comparison demonstrates the ability to accurately estimate parameters derived from the BSC, including an effective scatterer size and the acoustic concentration, both of which may prove useful for diagnostic applications of ultrasound tissue characterization.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20690431      PMCID: PMC3132101          DOI: 10.1177/016173461003200104

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrason Imaging        ISSN: 0161-7346            Impact factor:   1.578


  17 in total

1.  Interlaboratory comparison of ultrasonic backscatter, attenuation, and speed measurements.

Authors:  E L Madsen; F Dong; G R Frank; B S Garra; K A Wear; T Wilson; J A Zagzebski; H L Miller; K K Shung; S H Wang; E J Feleppa; T Liu; W D O'Brien; K A Topp; N T Sanghvi; A V Zaitsev; T J Hall; J B Fowlkes; O D Kripfgans; J G Miller
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 2.153

2.  Tissue-mimicking liquid for use in exposimetry.

Authors:  Timothy A Stiles; Ernest L Madsen; Gary R Frank; Thomas Diehl; John A Lucey
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.153

3.  Parametric ultrasound imaging from backscatter coefficient measurements: image formation and interpretation.

Authors:  M F Insana; T J Hall
Journal:  Ultrason Imaging       Date:  1990-10       Impact factor: 1.578

4.  Current time-domain methods for assessing tissue motion by analysis from reflected ultrasound echoes-a review.

Authors:  I A Hein; W R O'Brien
Journal:  IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 2.725

5.  Ultrasonic measurement of glomerular diameters in normal adult humans.

Authors:  T J Hall; M F Insana; L A Harrison; G G Cox
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 2.998

6.  Instrument-independent acoustic backscatter coefficient imaging.

Authors:  E J Boote; J A Zagzebski; E L Madsen; T J Hall
Journal:  Ultrason Imaging       Date:  1988-04       Impact factor: 1.578

7.  Frequency-dependent angular scattering of ultrasound by tissue-mimicking materials and excised tissue.

Authors:  W J Davros; J A Zagzebski; E L Madsen
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1986-07       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Tests of the accuracy of a data reduction method for determination of acoustic backscatter coefficients.

Authors:  M F Insana; E L Madsen; T J Hall; J A Zagzebski
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1986-05       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Method of data reduction for accurate determination of acoustic backscatter coefficients.

Authors:  E L Madsen; M F Insana; J A Zagzebski
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1984-09       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Tissue mimicking materials for ultrasound phantoms.

Authors:  E L Madsen; J A Zagzebski; R A Banjavie; R E Jutila
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1978 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.071

View more
  22 in total

1.  Ultrasonic backscatter coefficient quantitative estimates from high-concentration Chinese Hamster Ovary cell pellet biophantoms.

Authors:  Aiguo Han; Rami Abuhabsah; James P Blue; Sandhya Sarwate; William D O'Brien
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Ultrasonic backscatter coefficients for weakly scattering, agar spheres in agar phantoms.

Authors:  Michael R King; Janelle J Anderson; Maria-Teresa Herd; Darryl Ma; Alexander Haak; Lauren A Wirtzfeld; Ernest L Madsen; James A Zagzebski; Michael L Oelze; Timothy J Hall; William D O'Brien
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  On the estimation of backscatter coefficients using single-element focused transducers.

Authors:  Roberto J Lavarello; Goutam Ghoshal; Michael L Oelze
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 4.  The mechanical role of the cervix in pregnancy.

Authors:  Kristin M Myers; Helen Feltovich; Edoardo Mazza; Joy Vink; Michael Bajka; Ronald J Wapner; Timothy J Hall; Michael House
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2015-03-11       Impact factor: 2.712

5.  Cross-imaging system comparison of backscatter coefficient estimates from a tissue-mimicking material.

Authors:  Kibo Nam; Ivan M Rosado-Mendez; Lauren A Wirtzfeld; Viksit Kumar; Ernest L Madsen; Goutam Ghoshal; Alexander D Pawlicki; Michael L Oelze; Roberto J Lavarello; Timothy A Bigelow; James A Zagzebski; William D O'Brien; Timothy J Hall
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Effects of acoustic nonlinearity on pulse-echo attenuation coefficient estimation from tissue-mimicking phantoms.

Authors:  Andres Coila; Michael L Oelze
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Validation of differences in backscatter coefficients among four ultrasound scanners with different beamforming methods.

Authors:  Masaaki Omura; Hideyuki Hasegawa; Ryo Nagaoka; Kenji Yoshida; Tadashi Yamaguchi
Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)       Date:  2019-11-03       Impact factor: 1.314

8.  A Quantitative Ultrasound-Based Multi-Parameter Classifier for Breast Masses.

Authors:  Haidy G Nasief; Ivan M Rosado-Mendez; James A Zagzebski; Timothy J Hall
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2019-04-26       Impact factor: 2.998

9.  Comparison of ultrasound attenuation and backscatter estimates in layered tissue-mimicking phantoms among three clinical scanners.

Authors:  Kibo Nam; Ivan M Rosado-Mendez; Lauren A Wirtzfeld; Goutam Ghoshal; Alexander D Pawlicki; Ernest L Madsen; Roberto J Lavarello; Michael L Oelze; James A Zagzebski; William D O'Brien; Timothy J Hall
Journal:  Ultrason Imaging       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 1.578

10.  Quantitative ultrasound estimates from populations of scatterers with continuous size distributions: effects of the size estimator algorithm.

Authors:  Roberto Lavarello; Michael Oelze
Journal:  IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 2.725

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.