Loading…

Evaluation of flow estimation methods for 3D color Doppler imaging

In 3D ultrasound color Doppler imaging (CDI), similar to 2D CDI, 8-12 pulse transmissions (ensembles, E) per each scanline are used for clutter rejection and flow estimation, leading to a low volume acquisition rate. This rate could be improved by using a small number of ensembles (e.g., E=4). Howev...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jaesok Yu, Wooyoul Lee, Tai-kyong Song, Yang Mo Yoo
Format: Conference Proceeding
Language:English
Subjects:
Online Access:Request full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page 1828
container_issue
container_start_page 1825
container_title
container_volume
creator Jaesok Yu
Wooyoul Lee
Tai-kyong Song
Yang Mo Yoo
description In 3D ultrasound color Doppler imaging (CDI), similar to 2D CDI, 8-12 pulse transmissions (ensembles, E) per each scanline are used for clutter rejection and flow estimation, leading to a low volume acquisition rate. This rate could be improved by using a small number of ensembles (e.g., E=4). However, the impact of the use of a small ensemble size on clutter rejection and flow estimation must be investigated. In this paper, we have evaluated three flow estimation methods: autoregression (AR), eigendecomposition (ED), and autocorrelation (AC) for a small size ensemble (E=4). To compare the performance of three methods, raw radio-frequency (RF) data were acquired from the Doppler flow phantom (RMI-1425A, Gammex Inc., USA) by using a commercial ultrasound machine (Accuvix V10, Medison Corp., Korea) equipped with a research package. From the phantom experiment, the AR estimator exhibited a significant improvement in area under receive operating characteristic curves compared to AC and ED methods (i.e., 0.97 ± 0.02 vs. 0.86 ± 0.07 and 0.83 ± 0.05, respectively). There is no statistically significant difference between the AC and ED methods (p>;0.24). These results indicate that the AR estimator would be suitable for flow estimation in 3D CDI with a low ensemble size.
doi_str_mv 10.1109/ULTSYM.2010.5935638
format conference_proceeding
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>ieee_6IE</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_ieee_primary_5935638</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ieee_id>5935638</ieee_id><sourcerecordid>5935638</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-i90t-981dd85d467c229973f98cb9def0e4fd866132e218e749b097dc1dec13f5a6c73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo1UMtOwzAQNAIkSskX9OIfSPHa8WOP0AcgBXEgHDhVabwuQWkdJQHE3xOpZS6zMxrNSsPYDMQcQODtW168vj_PpRgNjUob5c5YgtZBpq0VyoE8Z9f_QqoLNgGhIRUA9oolff8pRhiDVooJu199l81XOdTxwGPgoYk_nPqh3h-tPQ0f0fc8xI6rJa9iMx7L2LYNdXwM7erD7oZdhrLpKTnxlBXrVbF4TPOXh6fFXZ7WKIYUHXjvtM-MraREtCqgq7boKQjKgnfGgJIkwZHNcCvQ-go8VaCCLk1l1ZTNjrU1EW3abvze_W5OC6g_8vpNZA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Publisher</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>conference_proceeding</recordtype></control><display><type>conference_proceeding</type><title>Evaluation of flow estimation methods for 3D color Doppler imaging</title><source>IEEE Electronic Library (IEL) Conference Proceedings</source><creator>Jaesok Yu ; Wooyoul Lee ; Tai-kyong Song ; Yang Mo Yoo</creator><creatorcontrib>Jaesok Yu ; Wooyoul Lee ; Tai-kyong Song ; Yang Mo Yoo</creatorcontrib><description>In 3D ultrasound color Doppler imaging (CDI), similar to 2D CDI, 8-12 pulse transmissions (ensembles, E) per each scanline are used for clutter rejection and flow estimation, leading to a low volume acquisition rate. This rate could be improved by using a small number of ensembles (e.g., E=4). However, the impact of the use of a small ensemble size on clutter rejection and flow estimation must be investigated. In this paper, we have evaluated three flow estimation methods: autoregression (AR), eigendecomposition (ED), and autocorrelation (AC) for a small size ensemble (E=4). To compare the performance of three methods, raw radio-frequency (RF) data were acquired from the Doppler flow phantom (RMI-1425A, Gammex Inc., USA) by using a commercial ultrasound machine (Accuvix V10, Medison Corp., Korea) equipped with a research package. From the phantom experiment, the AR estimator exhibited a significant improvement in area under receive operating characteristic curves compared to AC and ED methods (i.e., 0.97 ± 0.02 vs. 0.86 ± 0.07 and 0.83 ± 0.05, respectively). There is no statistically significant difference between the AC and ED methods (p&gt;;0.24). These results indicate that the AR estimator would be suitable for flow estimation in 3D CDI with a low ensemble size.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1051-0117</identifier><identifier>ISBN: 1457703823</identifier><identifier>ISBN: 9781457703829</identifier><identifier>EISBN: 9781457703812</identifier><identifier>EISBN: 1457703807</identifier><identifier>EISBN: 9781457703805</identifier><identifier>EISBN: 1457703815</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1109/ULTSYM.2010.5935638</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>IEEE</publisher><subject>3D Color Doppler Imaging ; autocorrelation ; autoregression ; Clutter ; clutter rejection ; Doppler effect ; eigendecomposition ; Estimation ; flow estimation ; Image color analysis ; Imaging ; Three dimensional displays ; Ultrasonic imaging ; Ultrasound Imaging</subject><ispartof>2010 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium, 2010, p.1825-1828</ispartof><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5935638$$EHTML$$P50$$Gieee$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>309,310,780,784,789,790,2058,27925,54920</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5935638$$EView_record_in_IEEE$$FView_record_in_$$GIEEE</linktorsrc></links><search><creatorcontrib>Jaesok Yu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wooyoul Lee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tai-kyong Song</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang Mo Yoo</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of flow estimation methods for 3D color Doppler imaging</title><title>2010 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium</title><addtitle>ULTSYM</addtitle><description>In 3D ultrasound color Doppler imaging (CDI), similar to 2D CDI, 8-12 pulse transmissions (ensembles, E) per each scanline are used for clutter rejection and flow estimation, leading to a low volume acquisition rate. This rate could be improved by using a small number of ensembles (e.g., E=4). However, the impact of the use of a small ensemble size on clutter rejection and flow estimation must be investigated. In this paper, we have evaluated three flow estimation methods: autoregression (AR), eigendecomposition (ED), and autocorrelation (AC) for a small size ensemble (E=4). To compare the performance of three methods, raw radio-frequency (RF) data were acquired from the Doppler flow phantom (RMI-1425A, Gammex Inc., USA) by using a commercial ultrasound machine (Accuvix V10, Medison Corp., Korea) equipped with a research package. From the phantom experiment, the AR estimator exhibited a significant improvement in area under receive operating characteristic curves compared to AC and ED methods (i.e., 0.97 ± 0.02 vs. 0.86 ± 0.07 and 0.83 ± 0.05, respectively). There is no statistically significant difference between the AC and ED methods (p&gt;;0.24). These results indicate that the AR estimator would be suitable for flow estimation in 3D CDI with a low ensemble size.</description><subject>3D Color Doppler Imaging</subject><subject>autocorrelation</subject><subject>autoregression</subject><subject>Clutter</subject><subject>clutter rejection</subject><subject>Doppler effect</subject><subject>eigendecomposition</subject><subject>Estimation</subject><subject>flow estimation</subject><subject>Image color analysis</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Three dimensional displays</subject><subject>Ultrasonic imaging</subject><subject>Ultrasound Imaging</subject><issn>1051-0117</issn><isbn>1457703823</isbn><isbn>9781457703829</isbn><isbn>9781457703812</isbn><isbn>1457703807</isbn><isbn>9781457703805</isbn><isbn>1457703815</isbn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>conference_proceeding</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>conference_proceeding</recordtype><sourceid>6IE</sourceid><recordid>eNo1UMtOwzAQNAIkSskX9OIfSPHa8WOP0AcgBXEgHDhVabwuQWkdJQHE3xOpZS6zMxrNSsPYDMQcQODtW168vj_PpRgNjUob5c5YgtZBpq0VyoE8Z9f_QqoLNgGhIRUA9oolff8pRhiDVooJu199l81XOdTxwGPgoYk_nPqh3h-tPQ0f0fc8xI6rJa9iMx7L2LYNdXwM7erD7oZdhrLpKTnxlBXrVbF4TPOXh6fFXZ7WKIYUHXjvtM-MraREtCqgq7boKQjKgnfGgJIkwZHNcCvQ-go8VaCCLk1l1ZTNjrU1EW3abvze_W5OC6g_8vpNZA</recordid><startdate>201010</startdate><enddate>201010</enddate><creator>Jaesok Yu</creator><creator>Wooyoul Lee</creator><creator>Tai-kyong Song</creator><creator>Yang Mo Yoo</creator><general>IEEE</general><scope>6IE</scope><scope>6IH</scope><scope>CBEJK</scope><scope>RIE</scope><scope>RIO</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201010</creationdate><title>Evaluation of flow estimation methods for 3D color Doppler imaging</title><author>Jaesok Yu ; Wooyoul Lee ; Tai-kyong Song ; Yang Mo Yoo</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-i90t-981dd85d467c229973f98cb9def0e4fd866132e218e749b097dc1dec13f5a6c73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>conference_proceedings</rsrctype><prefilter>conference_proceedings</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>3D Color Doppler Imaging</topic><topic>autocorrelation</topic><topic>autoregression</topic><topic>Clutter</topic><topic>clutter rejection</topic><topic>Doppler effect</topic><topic>eigendecomposition</topic><topic>Estimation</topic><topic>flow estimation</topic><topic>Image color analysis</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Three dimensional displays</topic><topic>Ultrasonic imaging</topic><topic>Ultrasound Imaging</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Jaesok Yu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wooyoul Lee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tai-kyong Song</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang Mo Yoo</creatorcontrib><collection>IEEE Electronic Library (IEL) Conference Proceedings</collection><collection>IEEE Proceedings Order Plan (POP) 1998-present by volume</collection><collection>IEEE Xplore All Conference Proceedings</collection><collection>IEEE Xplore</collection><collection>IEEE Proceedings Order Plans (POP) 1998-present</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Jaesok Yu</au><au>Wooyoul Lee</au><au>Tai-kyong Song</au><au>Yang Mo Yoo</au><format>book</format><genre>proceeding</genre><ristype>CONF</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of flow estimation methods for 3D color Doppler imaging</atitle><btitle>2010 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium</btitle><stitle>ULTSYM</stitle><date>2010-10</date><risdate>2010</risdate><spage>1825</spage><epage>1828</epage><pages>1825-1828</pages><issn>1051-0117</issn><isbn>1457703823</isbn><isbn>9781457703829</isbn><eisbn>9781457703812</eisbn><eisbn>1457703807</eisbn><eisbn>9781457703805</eisbn><eisbn>1457703815</eisbn><abstract>In 3D ultrasound color Doppler imaging (CDI), similar to 2D CDI, 8-12 pulse transmissions (ensembles, E) per each scanline are used for clutter rejection and flow estimation, leading to a low volume acquisition rate. This rate could be improved by using a small number of ensembles (e.g., E=4). However, the impact of the use of a small ensemble size on clutter rejection and flow estimation must be investigated. In this paper, we have evaluated three flow estimation methods: autoregression (AR), eigendecomposition (ED), and autocorrelation (AC) for a small size ensemble (E=4). To compare the performance of three methods, raw radio-frequency (RF) data were acquired from the Doppler flow phantom (RMI-1425A, Gammex Inc., USA) by using a commercial ultrasound machine (Accuvix V10, Medison Corp., Korea) equipped with a research package. From the phantom experiment, the AR estimator exhibited a significant improvement in area under receive operating characteristic curves compared to AC and ED methods (i.e., 0.97 ± 0.02 vs. 0.86 ± 0.07 and 0.83 ± 0.05, respectively). There is no statistically significant difference between the AC and ED methods (p&gt;;0.24). These results indicate that the AR estimator would be suitable for flow estimation in 3D CDI with a low ensemble size.</abstract><pub>IEEE</pub><doi>10.1109/ULTSYM.2010.5935638</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier ISSN: 1051-0117
ispartof 2010 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium, 2010, p.1825-1828
issn 1051-0117
language eng
recordid cdi_ieee_primary_5935638
source IEEE Electronic Library (IEL) Conference Proceedings
subjects 3D Color Doppler Imaging
autocorrelation
autoregression
Clutter
clutter rejection
Doppler effect
eigendecomposition
Estimation
flow estimation
Image color analysis
Imaging
Three dimensional displays
Ultrasonic imaging
Ultrasound Imaging
title Evaluation of flow estimation methods for 3D color Doppler imaging
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T18%3A35%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-ieee_6IE&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=proceeding&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20flow%20estimation%20methods%20for%203D%20color%20Doppler%20imaging&rft.btitle=2010%20IEEE%20International%20Ultrasonics%20Symposium&rft.au=Jaesok%20Yu&rft.date=2010-10&rft.spage=1825&rft.epage=1828&rft.pages=1825-1828&rft.issn=1051-0117&rft.isbn=1457703823&rft.isbn_list=9781457703829&rft_id=info:doi/10.1109/ULTSYM.2010.5935638&rft.eisbn=9781457703812&rft.eisbn_list=1457703807&rft.eisbn_list=9781457703805&rft.eisbn_list=1457703815&rft_dat=%3Cieee_6IE%3E5935638%3C/ieee_6IE%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-i90t-981dd85d467c229973f98cb9def0e4fd866132e218e749b097dc1dec13f5a6c73%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ieee_id=5935638&rfr_iscdi=true