148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22423724)
41. Ultrasonic backscatter coefficient estimation in nonlinear regime using an in situ calibration target.
Coila A; Oelze ML
J Acoust Soc Am; 2022 Jun; 151(6):4196. PubMed ID: 35778186
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Ultrasound contrast agents affect the angiogenic response.
Johnson CA; Miller RJ; O'Brien WD
J Ultrasound Med; 2011 Jul; 30(7):933-41. PubMed ID: 21705726
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Real-time texture analysis for identifying optimum microbubble concentration in 2-D ultrasonic particle image velocimetry.
Niu L; Qian M; Yan L; Yu W; Jiang B; Jin Q; Wang Y; Shandas R; Liu X; Zheng H
Ultrasound Med Biol; 2011 Aug; 37(8):1280-91. PubMed ID: 21684062
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Influence of temperature, needle gauge and injection rate on the size distribution, concentration and acoustic responses of ultrasound contrast agents at high frequency.
Sun C; Panagakou I; Sboros V; Butler MB; Kenwright D; Thomson AJ; Moran CM
Ultrasonics; 2016 Aug; 70():84-91. PubMed ID: 27140502
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Understanding the limitations of ultrasonic backscatter measurements from microbubble populations.
Sboros V; Ramnarine KV; Moran CM; Pye SD; McDicken WN
Phys Med Biol; 2002 Dec; 47(23):4287-99. PubMed ID: 12502050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Theoretical predictions of harmonic generation from submicron ultrasound contrast agents for nonlinear biomedical ultrasound imaging.
Zheng H; Mukdadi O; Shandas R
Phys Med Biol; 2006 Feb; 51(3):557-73. PubMed ID: 16424581
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Microbubble Composition and Preparation for High-Frequency Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Imaging: In Vitro and In Vivo Evaluation.
Daeichin V; van Rooij T; Skachkov I; Ergin B; Specht PA; Lima A; Ince C; Bosch JG; van der Steen AF; de Jong N; Kooiman K
IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control; 2017 Mar; 64(3):555-567. PubMed ID: 28113312
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Nonlinear Imaging of Microbubble Contrast Agent Using the Volterra Filter: In Vivo Results.
Du J; Liu D; Ebbini ES
IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control; 2016 Dec; 63(12):2069-2081. PubMed ID: 27705855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Theoretical estimation of attenuation coefficient of resonant ultrasound contrast agents.
Xia L
J Acoust Soc Am; 2020 May; 147(5):3061. PubMed ID: 32486799
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Validation of differences in backscatter coefficients among four ultrasound scanners with different beamforming methods.
Omura M; Hasegawa H; Nagaoka R; Yoshida K; Yamaguchi T
J Med Ultrason (2001); 2020 Jan; 47(1):35-46. PubMed ID: 31679096
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. The influence of fragmentation on the acoustic response from shrinking bubbles.
Bevan PD; Karshafian R; Burns PN
Ultrasound Med Biol; 2008 Jul; 34(7):1152-62. PubMed ID: 18343022
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Acoustic and kinetic behaviour of definity in mice exposed to high frequency ultrasound.
Stapleton S; Goodman H; Zhou YQ; Cherin E; Henkelman RM; Burns PN; Foster FS
Ultrasound Med Biol; 2009 Feb; 35(2):296-307. PubMed ID: 18950930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Selectin ligands promote ultrasound contrast agent adhesion under shear flow.
Rychak JJ; Li B; Acton ST; Leppänen A; Cummings RD; Ley K; Klibanov AL
Mol Pharm; 2006; 3(5):516-24. PubMed ID: 17009850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Noninvasive measurement of local thermal diffusivity using backscattered ultrasound and focused ultrasound heating.
Anand A; Kaczkowski PJ
Ultrasound Med Biol; 2008 Sep; 34(9):1449-64. PubMed ID: 18450361
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Ultrasound, contrast agents and biological cells; a simplified model for their interaction during in vitro experiments.
Nyborg WL
Ultrasound Med Biol; 2006 Oct; 32(10):1557-68. PubMed ID: 17045877
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Acoustic bubble sorting for ultrasound contrast agent enrichment.
Segers T; Versluis M
Lab Chip; 2014 May; 14(10):1705-14. PubMed ID: 24651248
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Targeted binding of PEG-lipid modified polymer ultrasound contrast agents with tiered surface architecture.
Duncanson WJ; Oum K; Eisenbrey JR; Cleveland RO; Wheatley MA; Wong JY
Biotechnol Bioeng; 2010 Jun; 106(3):501-6. PubMed ID: 20091738
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Predicting backscatter characteristics from micron- and submicron-scale ultrasound contrast agents using a size-integration technique.
Zheng H; Barker A; Shandas R
IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control; 2006 Mar; 53(3):639-44. PubMed ID: 16555773
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Characterizing how size distribution and concentration affect echogenicity of ultrasound contrast agents.
Koo B; Liu Y; Abboud M; Qin B; Wu Y; Choi S; Kozak D; Zheng J
Ultrasonics; 2023 Jan; 127():106827. PubMed ID: 36063769
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Contrast agent stability: a continuous B-mode imaging approach.
Sboros V; Moran CM; Pye SD; McDicken WN
Ultrasound Med Biol; 2001 Oct; 27(10):1367-77. PubMed ID: 11731050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
