Literature DB >> 23927359

Evaluation of the impact of backscatter intensity variations on ultrasound attenuation estimation.

Eenas A Omari1, Tomy Varghese, Ernest L Madsen, Gary Frank.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Quantitative ultrasound based approaches such as attenuation slope estimation can be used to determine underlying tissue properties and eventually used as a supplemental diagnostic technique to B-mode imaging. The authors investigate the impact of backscatter intensity and frequency dependence variations on the attenuation slope estimation accuracy.
METHODS: The authors compare three frequency domain based attenuation slope estimation algorithms, namely, a spectral difference method, the reference phantom method, and two spectral shift methods: a hybrid method and centroid downshift method. Both the reference phantom and hybrid method use a tissue-mimicking phantom with well-defined acoustic properties to reduce system dependencies and diffraction effects. The normalized power spectral ratio obtained is then filtered by a Gaussian filter centered at the transmit center frequency in the hybrid method. A spectral shift method is then used to estimate the attenuation coefficient from the normalized and filtered spectrum. The centroid downshift method utilizes the shift in power spectrum toward lower frequencies with depth. Numerical phantoms that incorporate variations in the backscatter intensity from -3 to 3 dB, by varying the scatterer number density and variations in the scatterer diameters ranging from 10 to 100 μm are simulated. Experimental tissue mimicking phantoms with three different scatterer diameter ranges (5-40, 75-90, and 125-150 μm) are also used to evaluate the accuracy of the estimation methods.
RESULTS: The reference phantom method provided accurate results when the acoustical properties of the reference and the sample are well matched. Underestimation occurs when the reference phantom possessed a higher sound speed than the sample, and overestimation occurs when the reference phantom had a lower sound speed than the sample. The centroid downshift method depends significantly on the bandwidth of the power spectrum, which in turn depends on the frequency dependence of the backscattering. The hybrid method was the least susceptible to changes in the sample's acoustic properties and provided the lowest standard deviation in the numerical simulations and experimental evaluations.
CONCLUSIONS: No significant variations in the estimation accuracy of the attenuation coefficient were observed with an increase in the scatterer number density in the simulated numerical phantoms for the three methods. Changes in the scatterer diameters, which result in different frequency dependence of backscatter, do not significantly affect attenuation slope estimation with the reference phantom and hybrid approaches. The centroid method is sensitive to variations in the scatterer diameter due to the frequency shift introduced in the power spectrum.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23927359      PMCID: PMC3745482          DOI: 10.1118/1.4816305

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  33 in total

1.  Estimation of ultrasound attenuation and dispersion using short time Fourier transform.

Authors:  B Zhao; O A Basir; G S Mittal
Journal:  Ultrasonics       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.890

2.  Initial clinical experience imaging scatterer size and strain in thyroid nodules.

Authors:  Thaddeus Wilson; Quan Chen; James A Zagzebski; Tomy Varghese; Lester VanMiddlesworth
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.153

3.  Attenuation estimation using spectral cross-correlation.

Authors:  Hyungsuk Kim; Tomy Varghese
Journal:  IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.725

Review 4.  In vitro estimation and imaging of attenuation coefficients and instantaneous frequency for breast tissue characterization.

Authors:  M Kubota; Y Yamashita; M Iga; T Tajima; T Mitomi
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 2.998

5.  Ultrasound attenuation estimation in soft tissue using the entropy difference of pulsed echoes between two adjacent envelope segments.

Authors:  H S Jang; T K Song; S B Park
Journal:  Ultrason Imaging       Date:  1988-10       Impact factor: 1.578

6.  Ultrasonic attenuation estimation of the pregnant cervix: a preliminary report.

Authors:  B L McFarlin; T A Bigelow; Y Laybed; W D O'Brien; M L Oelze; J S Abramowicz
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 7.299

7.  A narrowband pulse-echo technique for in vivo ultrasonic attenuation estimation.

Authors:  J Ophir; R E McWhirt; N F Maklad; P M Jaeger
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  1985-03       Impact factor: 4.538

8.  In vivo acoustic attenuation in liver: correlations with blood tests and histology.

Authors:  A Duerinckx; K Rosenberg; J Hoefs; D Aufrichtig; C Cole-Beuglet; G Kanel; S Lottenberg; L A Ferrari
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 2.998

9.  Ultrasonic attenuation and backscatter coefficient estimates of rodent-tumor-mimicking structures: comparison of results among clinical scanners.

Authors:  Kibo Nam; Ivan M Rosado-Mendez; Lauren A Wirtzfeld; Alexander D Pawlicki; Viksit Kumar; Ernest L Madsen; Goutam Ghoshal; Roberto J Lavarello; Michael L Oelze; Timothy A Bigelow; James A Zagzebski; William D O'Brien; Timothy J Hall
Journal:  Ultrason Imaging       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 1.578

10.  In vivo measurements of frequency-dependent attenuation in tumors of the liver.

Authors:  B W Dong; M Wang; K Xie; M H Chen
Journal:  J Clin Ultrasound       Date:  1994 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 0.910

View more
  5 in total

1.  Signal to noise ratio comparisons for ultrasound attenuation slope estimation algorithms.

Authors:  Eenas A Omari; Tomy Varghese
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  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

3.  Attenuation Coefficient Parameter Computations for Tissue Composition Assessment of Carotid Atherosclerotic Plaque in Vivo.

Authors:  Catherine N Steffel; Shahriar Salamat; Thomas D Cook; Stephanie M Wilbrand; Robert J Dempsey; Carol C Mitchell; Tomy Varghese
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2020-04-11       Impact factor: 2.998

4.  Scatterer number density considerations in reference phantom-based attenuation estimation.

Authors:  Nicholas Rubert; Tomy Varghese
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2014-04-13       Impact factor: 2.998

5.  Analysis of Coherent and Diffuse Scattering Using a Reference Phantom.

Authors:  Ivan M Rosado-Mendez; Lindsey C Drehfal; James A Zagzebski; Timothy J Hall
Journal:  IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control       Date:  2016-03-25       Impact factor: 2.725

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.