MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390443362 · doi:10.1002/mp.16921

Alternating direction method of multipliers for displacement estimation in ultrasound strain elastography

2023· article· en· W4390443362 on OpenAlexafffund
Md Ashikuzzaman, Bo Peng, Jingfeng Jiang, Hassan Rivaz

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNorm (philosophy)ElastographyDisplacement (psychology)EstimatorAlgorithmMathematicsComputer scienceUltrasoundAcousticsPhysicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Ultrasound strain imaging, which delineates mechanical properties to detect tissue abnormalities, involves estimating the time delay between two radio‐frequency (RF) frames collected before and after tissue deformation. The existing regularized optimization‐based time‐delay estimation (TDE) techniques suffer from at least one of the following drawbacks: (1) The regularizer is not aligned with the tissue deformation physics due to taking only the first‐order displacement derivative into account; (2) The ‐norm of the displacement derivatives, which oversmooths the estimated time‐delay, is utilized as the regularizer; (3) The modulus function defined mathematically should be approximated by a smooth function to facilitate the optimization of ‐norm. Purpose Our purpose is to develop a novel TDE technique that resolves the aforementioned shortcomings of the existing algorithms. Methods Herein, we propose employing the alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) for optimizing a novel cost function consisting of ‐norm data fidelity term and ‐norm first‐ and second‐order spatial continuity terms. ADMM empowers the proposed algorithm to use different techniques for optimizing different parts of the cost function and obtain high‐contrast strain images with smooth backgrounds and sharp boundaries. We name our technique A DMM for tota L varia T ion R eg U lar I zation in ultrasound ST rain imaging (ALTRUIST). ALTRUIST's efficacy is quantified using absolute error (AE), Structural SIMilarity (SSIM), signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR), contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR), and strain ratio (SR) with respect to GLUE, OVERWIND, and ‐SOUL, three recently published energy‐based techniques, and UMEN‐Net, a state‐of‐the‐art deep learning‐based algorithm. Analysis of variance (ANOVA)‐led multiple comparison tests and paired ‐tests at overall significance level were conducted to assess the statistical significance of our findings. The Bonferroni correction was taken into account in all statistical tests. Two simulated layer phantoms, three simulated resolution phantoms, one hard‐inclusion simulated phantom, one multi‐inclusion simulated phantom, one experimental breast phantom, and three in vivo liver cancer datasets have been used for validation experiments. We have published the ALTRUIST code at http://code.sonography.ai . Results ALTRUIST substantially outperforms the four state‐of‐the‐art benchmarks in all validation experiments, both qualitatively and quantitatively. ALTRUIST yields up to , , and SNR improvements and , , and CNR improvements over ‐SOUL, its closest competitor, for simulated, phantom, and in vivo liver cancer datasets, respectively, where the asterisk (*) indicates statistical significance. In addition, ANOVA‐led multiple comparison tests and paired ‐tests indicate that ALTRUIST generally achieves statistically significant improvements over GLUE, UMEN‐Net, OVERWIND, and ‐SOUL in terms of AE, SSIM map, SNR, and CNR. Conclusions A novel ultrasonic displacement tracking algorithm named ALTRUIST has been developed. The principal novelty of ALTRUIST is incorporating ADMM for optimizing an ‐norm regularization‐based cost function. ALTRUIST exhibits promising performance in simulation, phantom, and in vivo experiments.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.747
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicUltrasound Imaging and ElastographyFrench-language works237,207