Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 401

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Blood-Brain Barrier: Real-time Feedback-controlled Focused Ultrasound Disruption by Using an Acoustic Emissions–based Controller

Open access
O’Reilly, Meaghan A., Hynynen, Kullervo·2012·Radiology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine if focused ultrasound disruption of the blood-brain barrier (BBB) can be safely controlled by using real-time modulation of treatment pressures on the basis of acoustic emissions from the exposed microbubbles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All experiments were performed with the approval of the institutional animal care committee. Transcranial focused ultrasound (551.5 kHz, 10-msec bursts, 2-Hz pulse repetition frequency, 2 minute sonication) in conjunction with circulating microbubbles was applied in 86 locations in 27 rats to disrupt the BBB. Acoustic emissions captured during each burst by using a wideband polyvinylidene fluoride hydrophone were analyzed for spectral content and used to adjust treatment pressures. Pressures were increased incrementally after each burst until ultraharmonic emissions were detected, at which point the pressure was reduced to a percentage of the pressure required to induce the ultraharmonics and was maintained for the remainder of the sonication. Disruption was evaluated at contrast material-enhanced T1-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. Mean enhancement was calculated by averaging the signal intensity at the focus over a 3 × 3-pixel region of interest and comparing it with that in nonsonicated tissue. Histologic analysis was performed to determine the extent of damage to the tissue. Statistical analysis was performed by using Student t tests. RESULTS: For sonications resulting in BBB disruption, the mean peak pressure was 0.28 MPa ± 0.05 (standard deviation) (range, 0.18-0.40 MPa). By using the control algorithm, a linear relationship was found between the scaling level and the mean enhancement on T1-weighted MR images after contrast agent injection. At a 50% scaling level, mean enhancement of 19.6% ± 1.7 (standard error of the mean) was achieved without inducing damage. At higher scaling levels, histologic analysis revealed gross tissue damage, while at a 50% scaling level, no damage was observed at high-field-strength MR imaging or histologic examination 8 days after treatment. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that acoustic emissions can be used to actively control focused ultrasound exposures for the safe induction of BBB disruption.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1148/radiol.11111417

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 25 references

Cited by

See all 401

Metadata

Authors
O’Reilly, M. A., & Hynynen, K.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2012-04
Volume
263
Issue
1
Pages
96-106
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2166980283
Cited by
401
References
25
FWCI
9.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Blood-Brain Barrier: Real-time Feedback-controlled Focused Ultrasound Disruption by Using an Acoustic Emissions–based Controller. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.11111417
The paper
O’Reilly, M. A., & Hynynen, K. (2012). Blood-Brain Barrier: Real-time Feedback-controlled Focused Ultrasound Disruption by Using an Acoustic Emissions–based Controller. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11111417

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.