Literature DB >> 24831300

Effective scatterer diameter estimates for broad scatterer size distributions.

Eric P Nordberg1, Timothy J Hall2.   

Abstract

Acoustic form factors have been used to model the frequency dependence of acoustic scattering in phantoms and tissues. This work demonstrates that a broad range of scatterer sizes, individually well represented by Faran theory or a Gaussian form factor, is not accurately described by a single effective scatterer from either of these models. Contributions from a distribution of discrete scatterer sizes for two different form factor functions (Gaussian form factors and scattering functions from Faran's theory) were calculated and linearly combined. Composite form factors created from Gaussian distributions of scatterer sizes centered at 50 µm with standard deviations of up to σ = 40 µm were fit to each scattering model between 2 and 12 MHz. Scatterer distributions were generated using one of two assumptions: the number density of the scatterer diameter distribution was Gaussian distributed, or the volume fraction of each scatterer diameter in the distribution was Gaussian distributed. Each simulated form factor was fit to a single-diameter form factor model for Gaussian and exponential form factors. The mean-squared error (MSE) between the composite simulated data and the best-fit single-diameter model was smaller with an exponential form factor model, compared with a Gaussian model, for distributions with standard deviations larger than 30% of the centroid value. In addition, exponential models were shown to have better ability to distinguish between Faran scattering model-based distributions with varying center diameters than the Gaussian form factor model. The evidence suggests that when little is known about the scattering medium, an exponential scattering model provides a better first approximation to the scattering correlation function for a broad distribution of spherically symmetric scatterers than when a Gaussian form factor model is assumed.
© The Author(s) 2014.

Entities:  

Keywords:  backscatter; effective scatterer diameter; microstructure; quantitative ultrasound; tissue characterization

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24831300      PMCID: PMC4237706          DOI: 10.1177/0161734614534399

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


  35 in total

1.  The extracellular matrix is an important source of ultrasound backscatter from myocardium.

Authors:  C S Hall; M J Scott; G M Lanza; J G Miller; S A Wickline
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Volumetric ultrasound imaging using 2-D CMUT arrays.

Authors:  Omer Oralkan; A Sanli Ergun; Ching-Hsiang Cheng; Jeremy A Johnson; Mustafa Karaman; Thomas H Lee; Butrus T Khuri-Yakub
Journal:  IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 2.725

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.  Comparison of theoretical scattering results and ultrasonic data from clinical liver examinations.

Authors:  F L Lizzi; D L King; M C Rorke; J Hui; M Ostromogilsky; M M Yaremko; E J Feleppa; P Wai
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 2.998

5.  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

6.  Cross-imaging platform comparison of ultrasonic backscatter coefficient measurements of live rat tumors.

Authors:  Lauren A Wirtzfeld; Goutam Ghoshal; Zachary T Hafez; Kibo Nam; Yassin Labyed; Janelle J Anderson; Maria-Teresa Herd; Alexander Haak; Zhi He; Rita J Miller; Sandhya Sarwate; Douglas G Simpson; James A Zagzebski; Timothy A Bigelow; Michael L Oelze; Timothy J Hall; William D O'Brien
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 2.153

7.  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

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

Authors:  Janelle J Anderson; 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
Journal:  Ultrason Imaging       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 1.578

9.  Quantitative assessment of in vivo breast masses using ultrasound attenuation and backscatter.

Authors:  Kibo Nam; James A Zagzebski; Timothy J Hall
Journal:  Ultrason Imaging       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 1.578

10.  Effect of perfusion and blood content on ultrasonic backscattering of liver tissue.

Authors:  H Kimitsuki; R E Parsons; B Sigel; E J Feleppa; R M Golub; J Justin; J Machi; M Rorke; J Sokil-Melgar; I Kodama
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 2.998

View more
  3 in total

1.  Limitations on estimation of effective scatterer diameters.

Authors:  Yang Zhu; Aiguo Han; William D O'Brien; Michael L Oelze; Michael F Insana
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Quantitative Ultrasound Detects Smooth Muscle Activity at the Cervical Internal Os in Vitro.

Authors:  Andrew P Santoso; Joy Y Vink; George Gallos; Helen Feltovich; Timothy J Hall
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2019-10-24       Impact factor: 2.998

3.  Correlation length ratio as a parameter for determination of fiber-like structures in soft tissues.

Authors:  M Kari; H Feltovich; T J Hall
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2021-02-24       Impact factor: 3.609

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.