A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

On the Depth-Dependent Accuracy of Plane-Wave-Based Vector Velocity Measurements With Linear Arrays. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

High-frame-rate vector Doppler methods are used to measure blood velocities over large 2-D regions, but their accuracy is often estimated over a short range of depths. This article thoroughly examines the dependence of velocity measurement accuracy on the target position. Simulations were carried out on flat and parabolic flow profiles, for different Doppler angles, and considering a 2-D vector flow imaging (2-D VFI) method based on plane wave transmission and speckle tracking. The results were also compared with those obtained by the reference spectral Doppler (SD) method. Although, as expected, the bias and standard deviation generally tend to worsen at increasing depths, the measurements also show the following. First, the errors are much lower for the flat profile (from ≈ -4 ± 3% at 20 mm to ≈ -17 ± 4% at 100 mm) than for the parabolic profile (from ≈ -4 ± 3% to ≈ -38 ±%). Second, only part of the relative estimation error is related to the inherent low resolution of the 2-D VFI method. For example, even for SD, the error bias increases (on average) from -0.7% (20 mm) to -17% (60 mm) up to -26% (100 mm). Third, conversely, the beam divergence associated with the linear array acoustic lens was found to have a great impact on the velocity measurements. By simply removing such lens, the average bias for 2-D VFI at 60 and 100 mm dropped down to -9.4% and -19.4%, respectively. In conclusion, the results indicate that the transmission beam broadening on the elevation plane, which is not limited by reception dynamic focusing, is the main cause of velocity underestimation in the presence of high spatial gradients.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TUFFC.2021.3076284DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

2-d vfi
12
velocity measurements
8
vfi method
8
profile ≈
8
≈ ≈
8
2-d
5
depth-dependent accuracy
4
accuracy plane-wave-based
4
plane-wave-based vector
4
velocity
4

Similar Publications