Accuracy of visual scoring and semi-quantification of ultrasound strain elastography--a phantom study.
Accuracy of visual scoring and semi-quantification of ultrasound strain elastography--a phantom study.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0088699
复制
发表时间：
2014
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Nielsen MB
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Carlsen JF;Ewertsen C;Săftoiu A;Lönn L;Nielsen MB
本研究的目的是评估弹性模体中应变弹性成像的性能，并评估哪些因素影响视觉评分、应变直方图和应变比。此外，本研究旨在评估观察者经验对视觉评分的影响。两名操作人员在3.5 cm深度的弹性模体中使用5-18 MHz的传感器检测了20个不同刚度和尺寸（16.7至2.5 mm）的目标。使用了两种预设设置，产生80次扫描。8名评估员，4名有经验的，4名没有经验的，进行视觉评分。建立了半定量方法预测目标刚度的截止点。数据分为两类，允许计算敏感性和特异性。统计检验卡方检验和线性回归是否相关。应变比和应变直方图优于有经验和没有经验的观察者的视觉评分（p = 0.025，应变直方图vs有经验的观察者，p<0.001，应变直方图vs没有经验的观察者，p = 0.044应变比vs有经验的观察者，p = 0.002应变比vs没有经验的观察者）。当使用四种分类时，应变比和应变直方图在预测目标刚度方面没有显著差异（p = 0.83），经验丰富的观察者和经验不足的观察者之间也没有显著差异（p = 0.054）。当将两组数据合并（80 kPa/45 kPa vs. 14/8 kPa）时，观察者之间的差异变得显著（p<0.001）。目标尺寸对应变比测量（p = 0.017）和视觉评分（p<0.001）有显著影响，但对应变直方图没有影响（p = 0.358）。观察者经验对视觉评分有显著影响（p = 0.003）。应变比和应变直方图优于视觉评分在评估目标刚度的幻影。目标尺寸对应变比和视觉评分有显著影响，但对应变直方图没有显著影响。经验影响视觉评分，但有经验和没有经验的观察者之间的差异只有在观察两类目标僵硬时才显著。
The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of strain elastography in an elasticity phantom and to assess which factors influenced visual scoring, strain histograms and strain ratios. Furthermore this study aimed to evaluate the effect of observer experience on visual scorings. Two operators examined 20 targets of various stiffness and size (16.7 to 2.5 mm) in an elasticity phantom at a depth of 3.5 cm with a 5–18 MHz transducer. Two pre-settings were used yielding 80 scans. Eight evaluators, four experienced, four inexperienced, performed visual scorings. Cut-offs for semi-quantitative methods were established for prediction of target stiffness. Data was pooled in two categories allowing calculations of sensitivity and specificity. Statistical tests chi-square test and linear regression as relevant. Strain ratios and strain histograms were superior to visual scorings of both experienced and inexperienced observers (p = 0.025, strain histograms vs. experienced observers, p<0.001, strain histograms vs. inexperienced observers, p = 0.044 strain ratios vs. experienced observers and p = 0.002 strain ratios vs. inexperienced observers). No significant difference in predicting target stiffness between strain ratios and strain histograms (p = 0.83) nor between experienced and inexperienced observers (p = 0.054) was shown when using four categories. When pooling data in two groups (80 kPa/45 kPa vs. 14/8 kPa) the difference between the observers became significant (p<0.001). Target size had a significant influence on strain ratios measurements (p = 0.017) and on visual scorings (p<0.001) but not on the strain histograms(p = 0.358). Observer experience had significant effect on visual scorings(p = 0.003). Strain ratios and strain histograms are superior to visual scoring in assessing target stiffness in a phantom. Target size had a significant impact on strain ratios and visual scoring, but not on strain histograms. Experience influenced visual scorings but the difference between experienced and inexperienced observers was only significant when looking at two classes of target stiffness.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.3390/diagnostics3010117
发表时间：
2013-02-25
期刊：
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)
影响因子：
--
作者：
Carlsen JF;Ewertsen C;Lönn L;Nielsen MB
通讯作者：
Nielsen MB
影响因子：
2.9
作者：
Bhatia, Kunwar S. S.;Rasalkar, Darshana D.;Ahuja, Anil T.
通讯作者：
Ahuja, Anil T.
影响因子：
1.3
作者：
Chung, Se Yeong;Moon, Woo Kyung;Kim, Kwang Gi
通讯作者：
Kim, Kwang Gi
影响因子：
2.6
作者：
Kumm, Todd R.;Szabunio, Margaret M.
通讯作者：
Szabunio, Margaret M.
影响因子：
3.4
作者：
Chang, S.;Kim, M. -J.;Lee, M. -J.
通讯作者：
Lee, M. -J.