These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
181 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29856718)
21. Window-modulated compounding Nakagami imaging for ultrasound tissue characterization. Tsui PH; Ma HY; Zhou Z; Ho MC; Lee YH Ultrasonics; 2014 Aug; 54(6):1448-59. PubMed ID: 24835004 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Effect of adaptive threshold filtering on ultrasonic nakagami parameter to detect variation in scatterer concentration. Tsui PH; Wan YL; Huang CC; Wang MC Ultrason Imaging; 2010 Oct; 32(4):229-42. PubMed ID: 21213568 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Interlaboratory comparison of backscatter coefficient estimates for tissue-mimicking phantoms. Anderson JJ; Herd MT; King MR; Haak A; Hafez ZT; Song J; Oelze ML; Madsen EL; Zagzebski JA; O'Brien WD; Hall TJ Ultrason Imaging; 2010 Jan; 32(1):48-64. PubMed ID: 20690431 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Improved scatterer property estimates from ultrasound backscatter using gate-edge correction and a pseudo-Welch technique. Ghoshal G; Oelze ML IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control; 2010 Dec; 57(12):2828-32. PubMed ID: 21156378 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. A performance analysis of echographic ultrasonic techniques for non-invasive temperature estimation in hyperthermia range using phantoms with scatterers. Bazán I; Vazquez M; Ramos A; Vera A; Leija L Ultrasonics; 2009 Mar; 49(3):358-76. PubMed ID: 19100591 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Beamforming effects on generalized Nakagami imaging. Yu X; Guo Y; Huang SM; Li ML; Lee WN Phys Med Biol; 2015 Oct; 60(19):7513-31. PubMed ID: 26371543 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Noise-assisted correlation algorithm for suppressing noise-induced artifacts in ultrasonic Nakagami images. Tsui PH; Yeh CK; Huang CC IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed; 2012 May; 16(3):314-22. PubMed ID: 22155965 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Ultrasound simulation with deformable and patient-specific scatterer maps. Starkov R; Zhang L; Bajka M; Tanner C; Goksel O Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg; 2019 Sep; 14(9):1589-1599. PubMed ID: 31435812 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. [Analysis of scatterer microstructure feature based on Chirp-Z transform cepstrum]. Guo J; Lin S Sheng Wu Yi Xue Gong Cheng Xue Za Zhi; 2007 Dec; 24(6):1378-81. PubMed ID: 18232497 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Subresolution Displacements in Finite Difference Simulations of Ultrasound Propagation and Imaging. Pinton GF IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control; 2017 Mar; 64(3):537-543. PubMed ID: 27992333 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Quantitative ultrasound estimates from populations of scatterers with continuous size distributions. Lavarello R; Oelze M IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control; 2011 Apr; 58(4):744-53. PubMed ID: 21507752 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Extensions of nonlinear B/A parameter imaging methods for echo mode. Varray F; Basset O; Tortoli P; Cachard C IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control; 2011 Jun; 58(6):1232-44. PubMed ID: 21693405 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Improved diagnostics through quantitative ultrasound imaging. Hruska DP; Sanchez J; Oelze ML Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2009; 2009():1956-9. PubMed ID: 19964021 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Assessment of Homodyned K Distribution Modeling Ultrasonic Speckles from Scatterers with Varying Spatial Organizations. Hu X; Zhang Y; Deng L; Cai G; Zhang Q; Zhou Y; Zhang K; Zhang J J Healthc Eng; 2017; 2017():8154780. PubMed ID: 29312656 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Temperature dependent ultrasonic characterization of biological media. Ghoshal G; Luchies AC; Blue JP; Oelze ML J Acoust Soc Am; 2011 Oct; 130(4):2203-11. PubMed ID: 21973375 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. 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]
37. Resolving Ultrasound Contrast Microbubbles Using Minimum Variance Beamforming. Diamantis K; Anderson T; Butler MB; Villagomez-Hoyos CA; Jensen JA; Sboros V IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2019 Jan; 38(1):194-204. PubMed ID: 30059295 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Using phase information in ultrasonic backscatter for in vivo liver analysis. Molthen RC; Narayanan VM; Shankar PM; Reid JM; Genis V; Forsberg F; Halpern EJ; Goldberg BB Ultrasound Med Biol; 1998 Jan; 24(1):79-91. PubMed ID: 9483774 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. In Vivo Validation of an In Situ Calibration Bead as a Reference for Backscatter Coefficient Calculation. Zhao Y; Czarnota GJ; Park TH; Miller RJ; Oelze ML Ultrasound Med Biol; 2024 Jun; 50(6):833-842. PubMed ID: 38471999 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Semi-empirical bone model for determination of trabecular structure properties from backscattered ultrasound. Litniewski J; Nowicki A; Lewin PA Ultrasonics; 2009 Jun; 49(6-7):505-13. PubMed ID: 19232659 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]