Cited by 11Ultrasound Imaging and ElastographyMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesUltrasound in Clinical Applications

An Angle-Independent Cross-Sectional Doppler Method for Flow Estimation in the Common Carotid Artery

van Knippenberg, Luuk, van Sloun, Ruud J. G., Shulepov, Sergei, Bouwman, R. Arthur, Mischi, Massimo·2020·IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control

Abstract

The Doppler ultrasound is the most common technique for noninvasive quantification of blood flow, which, in turn, is of major clinical importance for the assessment of the cardiovascular condition. In this article, a method is proposed in which the vessel is imaged in the short axis, which has the advantage of capturing the whole flow profile while measuring the vessel area simultaneously. This view is easier to obtain than the longitudinal image that is currently used in flow velocity estimation, reducing operator dependence. However, the Doppler angle in cross-sectional images is unknown since the vessel wall can no longer be used to estimate the flow direction. The proposed method to estimate the Doppler angle in these images is based on the elliptical intersection between a cylindrical vessel and the ultrasound plane. The parameters of this ellipse (major axis, minor axis, and rotation) are used to estimate the Doppler angle by solving a least-squares problem. Theoretical feasibility was shown in a geometrical model, after which the Doppler angle was estimated in simulated ultrasound images generated in Field II, yielding a mean error within 4°. In vitro, across 15 short-axis measurements with a wide variety of Doppler angles, errors in the flow estimates were below 10%, and in vivo, the average velocities in systole obtained from longitudinal ( v=69.1 cm/s) and cross-sectional ( v=66.5 cm/s) acquisitions were in agreement. Further research is required to validate these r…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tuffc.2020.2975315

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Preliminary research showed that the RT view was more robust to motion and less operator-dependent than the LA view.

    “Regarding velocity measurements, preliminary research showed that the RT view was more robust to motion and less operator-dependent than the LA view [3].”

    From ESICM LIVES 2023 (2023) · cites this paper as [3]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van Knippenberg, L., van Sloun, R. J. G., Shulepov, S., Bouwman, R. A., & Mischi, M.
Affiliations
  • Philips (Netherlands) (NL)
  • Catharina Ziekenhuis (NL)
  • Eindhoven University of Technology (NL)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control
Published
2020-08
Volume
67
Issue
8
Pages
1513-1524
ISSN
  • 0885-3010 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-8955
OpenAlex
W3008815873
Cited by
11
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion)
Funders
Philips Research, Eindhoven University of Technology, and the Catharina Hospital Eindhoven
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Ultrasound Imaging and Elastography
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Ultrasound in Clinical Applications
Keywords
common carotid artery, blood flow velocity, short-axis imaging, least squares estimation, operator dependence, systolic flow
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Blood Flow Velocity, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Carotid Artery, Common, Ultrasonography, Doppler, Phantoms, Imaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review