Spectral-based Quantitative Ultrasound Imaging Processing Techniques: Comparisons of RF Versus IQ Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantitative ultrasound (QUS) is an imaging technique which includes spectral-based parameterization. Typical spectral-based parameters include the backscatter coefficient (BSC) and attenuation coefficient slope (ACS). Traditionally, spectral-based QUS relies on the radio frequency (RF) signal to calculate the spectral-based parameters. Many clinical and research scanners only provide the in-phase and quadrature (IQ) signal. To acquire the RF data, the common approach is to convert IQ signal back into RF signal via mixing with a carrier frequency. In this study, we hypothesize that the performance, that is, accuracy and precision, of spectral-based parameters calculated directly from IQ data is as good as or better than using converted RF data. To test this hypothesis, estimation of the BSC and ACS using RF and IQ data from software, physical phantoms and in vivo rabbit data were analyzed and compared. The results indicated that there were only small differences in estimates of the BSC between when using the original RF, the IQ derived from the original RF and the RF reconverted from the IQ, that is, root mean square errors (RMSEs) were less than 0.04. Furthermore, the structural similarity index measure (SSIM) was calculated for ACS maps with a value greater than 0.96 for maps created using the original RF, IQ data and reconverted RF. On the other hand, the processing time using the IQ data compared to RF data were substantially less, that is, reduced by more than a factor of two. Therefore, this study confirms two things: (1) there is no need to convert IQ data back to RF data for conducting spectral-based QUS analysis, because the conversion from IQ back into RF data can introduce artifacts. (2) For the implementation of real-time QUS, there is an advantage to convert the original RF data into IQ data to conduct spectral-based QUS analysis because IQ data-based QUS can improve processing speed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".