Hansen K L, Gran F, Pedersen M M, Holfort I K, Jensen J A, Nielsen M B
Section of Ultrasound, Department of Radiology, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, DK-2100 Kbh. Ø, Denmark.
Ultrasonics. 2010 Jan;50(1):52-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ultras.2009.07.007. Epub 2009 Jul 23.
Spectrograms in medical ultrasound are usually estimated with Welch's method (WM). WM is dependent on an observation window (OW) of up to 256 emissions per estimate to achieve sufficient spectral resolution and contrast. Two adaptive filterbank methods have been suggested to reduce the OW: Blood spectral Power Capon (BPC) and the Blood Amplitude and Phase EStimation method (BAPES). Ten volunteers were scanned over the carotid artery. From each data set, 28 spectrograms were produced by combining four approaches (WM with a Hanning window (W.HAN), WM with a boxcar window (W.BOX), BPC and BAPES) and seven OWs (128, 64, 32, 16, 8, 4, 2). The full-width-at-half-maximum (FWHM) and the ratio between main and side-lobe levels were calculated at end-diastole for each spectrogram. Furthermore, all 280 spectrograms were randomized and presented to nine radiologists for visual evaluation: useful/not useful. BAPES and BPC compared to WM had better resolution (lower FWHM) for all OW<128 while only BAPES compared to WM had improved contrast (higher ratio). According to the scores given by the radiologists, BAPES, BPC and W.HAN performed equally well (p>0.05) at OW 128 and 64, while W.BOX scored less (p<0.05). At OW 32, BAPES and BPC performed better than WM (p<0.0001) and BAPES was significantly superior to BPC at OW 16 (p=0.0002) and 8 (p<0.0001). BPC at OW 32 performed as well as BPC at OW 128 (p=0.29) and BAPES at OW 16 as BAPES at OW 128 (p=0.55). WM at OW 16 and 8 failed as all four methods at OW 4 and 2. The intra-observer variability tested for three radiologist showed on average good agreement (90%, kappa=0.79) and inter-observer variability showed moderate agreement (78%, kappa=0.56). The results indicated that BPC and BAPES had better resolution and BAPES better contrast than WM, and that OW can be reduced to 32 using BPC and 16 using BAPES without reducing the usefulness of the spectrogram. This could potentially increase the temporal resolution of the spectrogram or the frame-rate of the interleaved B-mode images.
医学超声中的频谱图通常采用韦尔奇方法(WM)进行估计。WM依赖于每个估计高达256次发射的观察窗(OW),以实现足够的频谱分辨率和对比度。已提出两种自适应滤波器组方法来减少OW:血液频谱功率卡彭(BPC)和血液幅度与相位估计方法(BAPES)。对10名志愿者的颈动脉进行了扫描。从每个数据集中,通过组合四种方法(带汉宁窗的WM(W.HAN)、带矩形窗的WM(W.BOX)、BPC和BAPES)和七个OW(128、64、32、16、8、4、2)生成28个频谱图。在舒张末期计算每个频谱图的半高全宽(FWHM)以及主瓣与旁瓣电平之比。此外,将所有280个频谱图随机排列并呈现给9名放射科医生进行视觉评估:有用/无用。与WM相比,对于所有OW<128,BAPES和BPC具有更好的分辨率(更低的FWHM),而与WM相比,只有BAPES具有更高的对比度(更高的比率)。根据放射科医生给出的评分,在OW为128和64时,BAPES、BPC和W.HAN的表现相当(p>0.05),而W.BOX的得分较低(p<0.05)。在OW为32时,BAPES和BPC的表现优于WM(p<0.0001),在OW为16时,BAPES明显优于BPC(p=0.0002),在OW为8时(p<0.0001)。OW为32时的BPC与OW为128时的BPC表现相当(p=0.29),OW为16时的BAPES与OW为128时的BAPES相当(p=0.55)。OW为16和8时的WM以及OW为4和2时的所有四种方法均失败。对三名放射科医生进行的观察者内变异性测试显示平均一致性良好(90%,kappa=0.79),观察者间变异性显示中等一致性(78%,kappa=0.56)。结果表明,与WM相比,BPC和BAPES具有更好的分辨率,BAPES具有更好的对比度,并且使用BPC时OW可降至32,使用BAPES时可降至16,而不会降低频谱图的有用性。这可能会潜在地提高频谱图的时间分辨率或交错B模式图像帧速率。