Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Mar;40(2):84-96.
doi: 10.1177/0161734617729159. Epub 2017 Sep 25.

Analysis of Two Quantitative Ultrasound Approaches

Pauline Muleki-Seya  1 , Aiguo Han  1 , Michael P Andre  2 , John W Erdman Jr  3 , William D O'Brien Jr  1
Affiliations

Analysis of Two Quantitative Ultrasound Approaches

Pauline Muleki-Seya et al. Ultrason Imaging. 2018 Mar.

Abstract

There are two well-known ultrasonic approaches to extract sets of quantitative parameters: Lizzi-Feleppa (LF) parameters: slope, intercept, and midband; and quantitative ultrasound (QUS)-derived parameters: effective scatterer diameter (ESD) and effective acoustic concentration (EAC). In this study, the relation between the LF and QUS-derived parameters is studied theoretically and experimentally on ex vivo mouse livers. As expected from the theory, LF slope is correlated to ESD ([Formula: see text]), and from experimental data, LF midband is correlated to EAC ([Formula: see text]). However, LF intercept is not correlated to ESD ([Formula: see text]) nor EAC ([Formula: see text]). The unexpected correlation observed between LF slope and EAC ([Formula: see text]) results likely from the high correlation between ESD and EAC due to the inversion process. For a liver fat percentage estimation, an important potential medical application, the parameters presenting the better correlation are EAC ([Formula: see text]) and LF midband ([Formula: see text]).

Keywords: Lizzi–Feleppa parameters; QUS parameters; mouse livers; quantitative ultrasound technique.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Correlation of LF slope, intercept and midband with ESD and EAC. In red are plotted the best second order polynomial or linear fit. The correlation coefficients against the null hypothesis provided p-values <0.001.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Correlation of LF slope, intercept and midband among each other and correlation between ESD and EAC. In red are plotted the best second order polynomial or linear fit. The correlation coefficients against the null hypothesis provided p-values <0.001.
Figure 3
Figure 3
LF slope, intercept and midband and QUS ESD and EAC as a function of fat percentage. In red is plotted the best linear fit. The correlation coefficients against the null hypothesis provided p-values <0.001.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Oelze ML. Quantitative ultrasound in soft tissues. Springer; 2013. Statistics of scatterer property estimates; pp. 43–69.
    1. Destrempes F, Cloutier G. Review of envelope statistics models for quantitative ultrasound imaging and tissue characterization In: Quantitative ultrasound in soft tissues. Springer; 2013. pp. 219–274. - PubMed
    1. Lizzi FL, Greenebaum M, Feleppa EJ, Elbaum M, Coleman DJ. Theoretical framework for spectrum analysis in ultrasonic tissue characterization. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 1983;73(4):1366–1373. - PubMed
    1. Insana MF, Hall TJ. Parametric ultrasound imaging from backscatter coefficient measurements: image formation and interpretation. Ultrasonic Imaging. 1990;12(4):245–267. - PubMed
    1. Kuc R, Schwartz M, Micsky LV. 1976 Ultrasonics Symposium. IEEE; 1976. Parametric estimation of the acoustic attenuation coefficient slope for soft tissue; pp. 44–47.

Publication types