OBJECTIVE: We compare the repeatability and accuracy of ultrasound shear wave elastography (USE) and transient optical coherence elastography (OCE). METHODS: Elastic wave speed in gelatin phantoms and chicken breast was measured with USE and OCE and compared with uniaxial mechanical compression testing. Intra- and Inter-repeatability were analyzed using Bland-Altman plots and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). RESULTS: OCE and USE differed from uniaxial testing by a mean absolute percent error of 8.92% and 16.9%, respectively, across eight phantoms of varying stiffness. Upper and lower limits of agreement for intrasample repeatability for USE and OCE were ±0.075 m/s and -0.14 m/s and 0.13 m/s, respectively. OCE and USE both had ICCs of 0.9991. In chicken breast, ICC for USE was 0.9385 and for OCE was 0.9924. CONCLUSION: OCE and USE can detect small speed changes and give comparable measurements. These measurements correspond well with uniaxial testing.
OBJECTIVE: We compare the repeatability and accuracy of ultrasound shear wave elastography (USE) and transient optical coherence elastography (OCE). METHODS: Elastic wave speed in gelatin phantoms and chicken breast was measured with USE and OCE and compared with uniaxial mechanical compression testing. Intra- and Inter-repeatability were analyzed using Bland-Altman plots and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). RESULTS: OCE and USE differed from uniaxial testing by a mean absolute percent error of 8.92% and 16.9%, respectively, across eight phantoms of varying stiffness. Upper and lower limits of agreement for intrasample repeatability for USE and OCE were ±0.075 m/s and -0.14 m/s and 0.13 m/s, respectively. OCE and USE both had ICCs of 0.9991. In chicken breast, ICC for USE was 0.9385 and for OCE was 0.9924. CONCLUSION: OCE and USE can detect small speed changes and give comparable measurements. These measurements correspond well with uniaxial testing.
Authors: Shang Wang; K V Larin; Jiasong Li; S Vantipalli; R K Manapuram; S Aglyamov; S Emelianov; M D Twa Journal: Laser Phys Lett Date: 2013-05-20 Impact factor: 2.016
Authors: Pengfei Song; Daniel C Mellema; Shannon P Sheedy; Duane D Meixner; Ryan M Karshen; Matthew W Urban; Armando Manduca; William Sanchez; Matthew R Callstrom; James F Greenleaf; Shigao Chen Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2016-01-18 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Vladimir Y Zaitsev; Alexander L Matveyev; Lev A Matveev; Alexander A Sovetsky; Matt S Hepburn; Alireza Mowla; Brendan F Kennedy Journal: J Biophotonics Date: 2020-11-03 Impact factor: 3.207
Authors: Hsiao-Chuan Liu; Mehdi Abbasi; Yong Hong Ding; Tuhin Roy; Margherita Capriotti; Yang Liu; Seán Fitzgerald; Karen M Doyle; Murthy Guddati; Matthew W Urban; Waleed Brinjikji Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2021-01-26 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Kelsey M Kennedy; Lixin Chin; Robert A McLaughlin; Bruce Latham; Christobel M Saunders; David D Sampson; Brendan F Kennedy Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2015-10-27 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Ekaterina V Gubarkova; Aleksander A Sovetsky; Dmitry A Vorontsov; Pavel A Buday; Marina A Sirotkina; Anton A Plekhanov; Sergey S Kuznetsov; Aleksander L Matveyev; Lev A Matveev; Sergey V Gamayunov; Alexey Y Vorontsov; Vladimir Y Zaitsev; Natalia D Gladkova Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2022-04-21 Impact factor: 3.562
Authors: Ekaterina V Gubarkova; Aleksander A Sovetsky; Lev A Matveev; Aleksander L Matveyev; Dmitry A Vorontsov; Anton A Plekhanov; Sergey S Kuznetsov; Sergey V Gamayunov; Alexey Y Vorontsov; Marina A Sirotkina; Natalia D Gladkova; Vladimir Y Zaitsev Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2022-05-05 Impact factor: 3.748