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...
Saved in:
Main Authors: | , , , |
---|---|
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>;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>;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>;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 |