Comparative evaluation of strain-based and model-based modulus elastography
Comparative evaluation of strain-based and model-based modulus elastography
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2005.02.005
复制
发表时间：
2005-06-01
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Ophir, J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Doyley, MM;Srinivasan, S;Ophir, J
基于应变成像的弹性成像目前存在机械伪影和有限的对比传输效率。解决逆弹性问题（IEP）应该可以消除这些困难；然而，由于 IEP 的不适定性质，这种弹性成像方法常常充满问题。本研究的目的是确定通过求解 IEP 计算出的模量弹性图的质量与使用标准应变成像方法生成的模量弹性图的质量如何。基于应变的模量弹性图（即，通过基于应力均匀性的假设简单地反转应变弹性图来计算的模量弹性图）和基于模型的模量弹性图（即，通过求解 IEP 计算出的模量弹性图）是从包含不同尺寸和模量对比度的夹杂物的一组模拟和基于明胶的模型中计算出来的。通过使用对比度噪声比 (CNRe) 和对比度传输效率 (CTEe) 性能指标来评估随后的弹性图。结果表明，在固定空间分辨率下，基于应变的模量弹性图的 CNRe 在统计上与通过求解 IEP 计算出的 CNRe 相当。在低模量对比度下，两种弹性成像方法的 CTEe 相当；然而，在高模量下，基于模型的模量弹性图的 CTEe 更优越。 （电子邮件：marvin.m.doyley@dartmouth.edu） (c) 2005 年世界超声医学与生物学联合会。
Elastography based on strain imaging currently endures mechanical artefacts and limited contrast transfer efficiency. Solving the inverse elasticity problem (IEP) should obviate these difficulties; however, this approach to elastography is often fraught with problems because of the ill-posed nature of the IEP. The aim of the present study was to determine how the quality of modulus elastograms computed by solving the IEP compared with those produced using standard strain imaging methodology. Strain-based modulus elastograms (i.e., modulus elastograms computed by simply inverting strain elastograms based on the assumption of stress uniformity) and model-based modulus elastograms (i.e., modulus elastograms computed by solving the IEP) were computed from a common cohort of simulated and gelatin-based phantoms that contained inclusions of varying size and modulus contrast. The ensuing elastograms were evaluated by employing the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNRe) and the contrast transfer efficiency (CTEe) performance metrics. The results demonstrated that, at a fixed spatial resolution, the CNRe of strain-based modulus elastograms was statistically equivalent to those computed by solving the IEP. At low modulus contrast, the CTEe of both elastographic imaging approaches was comparable; however, at high modulus, the CTEe of model-based modulus elastograms was superior. (E-mail: marvin.m.doyley@dartmouth.edu) (c) 2005 World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology.