Advancements in needle visualization enhancement and localization methods in ultrasound: a literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ultrasound guidance plays a central role in numerous minimally invasive procedures involving percutaneous needle insertion, ensuring safe and accurate needle placement. However, it encounters two primary challenges: (1) aligning the needle with the ultrasound beam and (2) visualizing the needle even when correctly aligned. In this review, we offer a concise overview of the physics foundation underlying these challenges and explore various approaches addressing specific challenges, with a focus on software-based solutions. We further distinguish between hardware-based and software-based solutions, placing a stronger emphasis on the latter. The incorporation of artificial intelligence into these methods to enhance needle visualization and localization is briefly discussed. We identify state-of-the-art needle detection methods, showcasing submillimeter precision in tip localization and orientation. Additionally, we provide insights into potential future directions, aiming to facilitate the translation of these advanced methods into the clinic. This article serves as a comprehensive guide, offering insights into challenges, evolving solutions, and prospective research directions to effectively address these issues.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".