ArticleArXiv2024
Optimizing In Vivo Data Acquisition for Robust Clinical Microvascular Imaging Using Ultrasound Localization Microscopy.
Article in ArXiv, 2024. 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
- Updated byOptimizing2025
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ultrasound localization microscopy (ULM) enables microvascular imaging at spatial resolutions beyond the acoustic diffraction limit, offering significant clinical potentials. However, ULM performance relies heavily on microbubble (MB) signal sparsity, the number of detected MBs, and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), all of which vary in clinical scenarios involving bolus MB injections. These sources of variations underscore the need to optimize MB dosage, data acquisition timing, and imaging settings in order to standardize and optimize ULM of microvasculature. This pilot study investigated temporal changes in MB signals during bolus injections in both pig and human models to optimize data acquisition for clinical ULM. Quantitative indices were developed to evaluate MB signal quality, guiding selection of acquisition timing that balances the MB localization quality and adequate MB counts. The effects of transmitted voltage and dosage were also explored. In the pig model, a relatively short window (approximately 10 seconds) for optimal acquisition was identified during the rapid wash-out phase, highlighting the need for real-time MB signal monitoring during data acquisition. The slower wash-out phase in humans allowed for a more flexible imaging window of 1-2 minutes, while trade-offs were observed between localization quality and MB density (or acquisition length) at different wash-out phase timings. Guided by these findings, robust ULM imaging was achieved in both pig and human kidneys using a short period of data acquisition, demonstrating its feasibility in clinical practice. This study provides insights into optimizing data acquisition for consistent and reproducible ULM, paving the way for its standardization and broader clinical applications.
Identifiers
39764396PMC11703319What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.