Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 33 references

Physics-informed Neural Networks Enable High Fidelity Shear Wave Viscoelastography across Multiple organs

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read SWVE-Net, a physics-informed neural network, recovers the Kelvin-Voigt shear modulus and viscosity directly from measured shear-wave particle velocities, bypassing the dispersion analysis that fails on small, reflection-heavy tissue…

desk verdict SWVE-Net is a sound, incremental extension of SWENet to viscosity inference; the numerical tests are clean, but the in vivo accuracy claim outruns the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03935 v2 pith:4MKNGMSF submitted 2025-05-06 physics.med-ph cond-mat.softphysics.bio-ph

Ziying Yin , Yuxi Guo , Jiayi Pu , Yuxuan Jiang , Shiyu Ma , Guo-Yang Li , Yanping Cao This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.med-phcond-mat.softphysics.bio-ph
keywords shearwaveelastographyviscoelasticityphysics-informedneuralnetworkKelvin-Voigtmodeldispersion-freeinversionultrafastultrasoundtissuecharacterizationinverseproblem
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

SWVE-Net is a physics-informed neural network that turns spatiotemporal movies of shear-wave particle velocity into two viscoelastic numbers: the Kelvin-Voigt shear modulus $\mu$ and viscosity $\eta$. It does this by putting the viscoelastic wave equation into the network's loss function, so the network has to produce wavefields that obey physics while matching the measured data. Because it never builds a dispersion curve, it avoids the main failure mode of conventional shear-wave elastography, which cannot tell viscosity-induced dispersion apart from finite-size structural dispersion. The paper reports inversion errors below 5% in finite-element simulations, including for a few-millimeter liver model with strong reflections, and in vivo standard-deviation-to-mean ratios below 15% for breast and biceps. If correct, this would give clinicians a quantitative viscosity readout in the small, reflection-prone, heterogeneous tissues where standard methods currently fall short.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a PINN whose loss consists of data mismatch plus residuals of the governing viscoelastic wave equation. Inputs are coordinates $(x_1, x_2, t)$; outputs are the stream function $\psi$ and incremental pressure $p$, from which the vertical particle velocity $v_2$ is compared with ultrasound measurements. The unknown material parameters $\mu$ and $\eta$ enter only as global scalars in the PDE residual, so gradient descent on the physics loss performs the inversion. Reflections from nearby boundaries are treated not as artifacts but as additional data that constrain the parameters. The extension over the earlier elastic SWENet is the addition of the viscosity term $\eta \dot{v}_{i,jj}$ in the loss.

What would settle it

Run SWVE-Net on a homogeneous tissue-mimicking phantom whose stiffness and viscosity are known from independent rheometry; if the recovered pair deviates from those values by more than the reported ~5%, or if the recovered numbers drift when the region of interest is resized, the claim that the velocity field uniquely determines uniform $\mu$ and $\eta$ would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single measured spatiotemporal field of the vertical particle velocity $v_2$ carries enough information to identify both $\mu$ and $\eta$ of a homogeneous Kelvin-Voigt material, with no dispersion analysis and no training corpus beyond the one wavefield. The network outputs a stream function $\psi$ and an incremental pressure $p$; residuals of the incompressible viscoelastic wave equation $\rho v_{i,tt} = -p_{,i} + \mu v_{i,jj} + \eta \dot{v}_{i,jj}$ are added to the data-mismatch loss. Minimizing that combined loss recovers $\mu$ and $\eta$ at the same time as it reconstructs the full wave field. The authors demonstrate this on finite-element data, on ex vivo liver, spleen, kidney, and brain, and on in vivo human breast and biceps. In the small-liver simulation, conventional 2D-FFT dispersion fitting returns a viscosity error of +44%, while SWVE-Net stays below 5%.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that each region of interest is one homogeneous, isotropic, incompressible Kelvin-Voigt solid, so a single pair of numbers, stiffness $\mu$ and viscosity $\eta$, describes the whole region and the measured vertical velocity uniquely determines them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Viscoelastic parameters are inferred from one spatiotemporal particle-velocity dataset, so no large pre-collected training set is needed.
  • Millimeter-scale samples with strong boundary reflections become measurable; the reflections become multi-source data instead of corrupting dispersion analysis.
  • Viscosity estimates improve sharply over the 2D-FFT dispersion baseline: on the small-liver simulation the baseline's viscosity error is +44%, while SWVE-Net's is below 5%.
  • The method generalizes across organs: ex vivo liver, spleen, kidney, and brain yield characteristic times near $10^{-4}$ s, and in vivo breast and biceps repeat within 15% scatter.
  • Because only the PDE residual changes, the framework is stated to extend to more complex constitutive models, potentially capturing behavior beyond the single-relaxation Kelvin-Voigt form.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Not tested in the paper: if reflections genuinely act as extra data, inversion error should shrink as reflection density increases; this is testable in simulations with increasingly small domains.
  • If the same loss construction is swapped to a fractional Kelvin-Voigt or multi-relaxation model, the method could return more than one relaxation timescale; the paper only fixes one $\eta$ per region.
  • A natural clinical extension is to make $\mu$ and $\eta$ spatially varying fields inside the ROI, which would directly map viscosity contrast across tumor or infarct boundaries instead of returning a region-average pair.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SWVE-Net, a physics-informed neural network (PINN) that infers the shear modulus μ and viscosity η of a homogeneous, isotropic, incompressible Kelvin–Voigt material directly from spatiotemporal vertical particle-velocity fields, bypassing dispersion-curve analysis. The method is validated on finite element (FE) simulations, including a small-scale model approximating a murine liver with strong boundary reflections, and on ex vivo and in vivo ultrasound shear-wave data from multiple organs (liver, spleen, kidney, brain, breast, biceps). The authors report FE inversion errors below 5%, a comparative 2D-FFT analysis with a +44% viscosity error on the same synthetic data, ex vivo characteristic times of order 0.1 ms, and in vivo repeatability with standard deviation-to-mean ratios below 15%.

Significance. If the in vivo accuracy claim could be supported, SWVE-Net would address a genuine clinical limitation: dispersion-based elastography struggles to separate viscosity-induced from structure-induced dispersion in small, reflection-prone samples. The idea of using reflected waves as multi-source data and embedding the wave equation directly in the loss is attractive and the FE demonstrations are internally consistent. The paper also provides a useful comparison showing that a standard 2D-FFT approach fails on the small-liver synthetic dataset. However, the current evidence establishes computational self-consistency and experimental repeatability, not absolute accuracy in living tissue, because no experimental ground truth is available and the FE tests use the same constitutive model in both data generation and inversion.

major comments (4)
  1. [Training Configuration] The in vivo accuracy claim is not supported by the evidence. For experimental data the loss weighting is set to λData/λPDE = 10^-4, so the fit is dominated by the PDE residual of the homogeneous Kelvin–Voigt equation. If real tissue differs through heterogeneity, prestress, anisotropy, or fractional-order viscoelasticity, the optimizer can keep the residual small by adjusting the unobserved pressure field and the unmeasured streamfunction components, while shifting μ and η away from their true effective values. The reported SD/mean < 15% measures precision, not accuracy. An independent validation is needed, e.g., against rheometry on tissue-mimicking phantoms with known properties, or against an established dispersion-based method on a phantom where that method is known to be accurate.
  2. [Finite element simulations] The FE validations are consistency checks rather than external benchmarks because the same Kelvin–Voigt model, Eq. (8), is used both to generate the synthetic data and as the inversion model. The small-liver simulation (μ = 0.5 kPa, η = 0.25 Pa·s) demonstrates that the solver recovers parameters under model-perfect conditions, but it does not test robustness to model mismatch. I recommend adding numerical experiments with data generated from a different constitutive model (e.g., fractional Kelvin–Voigt or a heterogeneous spatial distribution of μ and η) to quantify the bias that real-tissue model error could introduce.
  3. [Results] The claim of quantifying viscosity 'within a wide range (0.15–1.5 Pa·s)' is supported by only two FE cases, η = 0.15 and η = 1.5 Pa·s. This is an endpoint test, not a range characterization. Adding intermediate viscosity values (and possibly different shear moduli) would substantiate the stated range and would also clarify whether convergence behavior and error remain below 5% across the parameter space.
  4. [Discussion] The Discussion explicitly concedes that 'Living tissues may exhibit more complex viscoelastic behaviors that cannot be fully described by the KV model.' This limitation is load-bearing for the central claim of high-fidelity quantitative viscoelastic parameters in vivo. The paper should either temper the in vivo accuracy claims to 'KV-consistent effective parameters' or provide evidence that the KV assumption is adequate for the tissues and frequency range studied. Without such evidence, the reported ex vivo and in vivo values may be biased even when the PDE residual is small.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Materials and Methods (Finite element simulations)] In the description of the two viscosity coefficients, the second is written as 'η1 = 1.5 Pa·s' but should be 'η2 = 1.5 Pa·s'.
  2. [Materials and Methods (Finite element simulations)] The ARF focal point is said to move 'at a speed of 40 Mach', which is physically implausible for this application and is likely a typo for 40 m/s. Please correct this.
  3. [Results (Eq. 1)] The total loss is defined as ℒ = Σ λ_PDE ℒ_PDE + Σ λ_Data ℒ_Data over M terms, but M is not defined in the main text; later the batch size is given as M = 1×10^4. Please clarify the summation index and the role of M in the loss.
  4. [Table 2] The column header 'Characteristic time / (0.1ms)' is confusing because the values appear to be multiples of 0.1 ms rather than times in seconds. Please specify the unit explicitly in the table and the text.
  5. [Results (Ex vivo)] The statement that characteristic times are 'consistent with literature values' is not quantified. Please provide the specific literature ranges or references for each organ, since this is the closest the paper comes to an external comparison for ex vivo data.
  6. [Abstract] The abstract states that SWVE-Net 'quantifies viscosity parameters within a wide range (0.15–1.5 Pa*s)', but the FE validation only uses two endpoint values; please align the abstract with the actual evidence or add intermediate cases.
  7. [Conclusion] The Conclusion refers to 'SWE-Net' in several places where 'SWVE-Net' is intended; please correct the naming for consistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: SWVE-Net's inversion targets are independent of its measured inputs, and the FE tests are model-consistency checks rather than circular reductions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. SWVE-Net solves an inverse problem: the shear modulus μ and viscosity η are free parameters optimized so that neural-network outputs (ψ, p) satisfy the Kelvin–Voigt wave equation (Eq. 8) and match the measured vertical particle velocity v2 (Eq. 2). The targets are not definitions of the inputs: the v2 data are independent particle-velocity measurements, while μ and η are constitutive parameters of a physical model. The FE validation uses the same Kelvin–Voigt constitutive model as the embedded PDE, so it is a self-consistency check that verifies the optimizer and parameter identifiability under the assumed model, not an external test of model correctness. This limitation is explicitly acknowledged in the Discussion: 'Living tissues may exhibit more complex viscoelastic behaviors that cannot be fully described by the KV model.' The method extends the authors' previous SWENet [24] and cites the incremental-dynamics framework [28], but the resulting Eq. (8) is the standard linear Kelvin–Voigt wave equation, and no load-bearing result is imported solely from self-citations. In vivo repeatability (SD/mean < 15%) measures precision rather than accuracy, which again is a validation limitation, not circular reasoning. No equation is reused as its own output by construction, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities. The inferred mu and eta are outputs of the inverse problem, not hidden free parameters, but the loss weighting and architecture choices are hand-selected and the constitutive and homogeneity assumptions are uncharged premises on which the central claim depends.

free parameters (2)
  • Loss weighting ratio lambda_Data / lambda_PDE = 1e-1 for simulation datasets, 1e-4 for experimental datasets
    Chosen per dataset type to balance data mismatch against physics residual; no sensitivity analysis is provided, and the choice can affect the inferred mu and eta.
  • Network architecture and training hyperparameters = 8 hidden layers, 20 neurons per layer, tanh activation, batch size 1e4, about 80,000 iterations
    Hand-selected configuration from prior PINN studies; no systematic study of how architecture or initialization affects convergence or parameter uncertainty.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Each ROI is a single homogeneous, isotropic, incompressible Kelvin-Voigt material with spatially uniform mu and eta.
    Eq. (8) and the statement after Eq. (9) define mu and eta as global uniform parameters; the Discussion admits living tissues may exhibit more complex behavior.
  • domain assumption Incompressibility and two-dimensional plane-strain kinematics hold, so a stream function psi can represent the velocity field.
    Eq. (9) and the stream-function construction in Materials and Methods; out-of-plane motion and compressibility are neglected.
  • domain assumption The measured vertical particle velocity v2* is sufficient to constrain the inversion, with v1 and p inferred by the network through the PDE residuals.
    Only v2* enters the data loss in Eq. (2); no explicit noise model or identifiability analysis is provided.
  • domain assumption The PINN optimization converges to a unique and correct set of mu and eta.
    Convergence curves are shown for selected cases, but no uniqueness proof, multi-start study, or uncertainty quantification is given.
  • domain assumption Pre-stress can be neglected, reducing the prestressed viscoelastic incremental theory of [28] to the simpler linear KV wave equation.
    Eq. (5) sets the deviatoric stress and prestress terms to zero; real in vivo tissues are often under pre-existing stress.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Physics-informed Neural Networks Enable High Fidelity Shear Wave Viscoelastography across Multiple organs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4MKNGMSF

@misc{pith2026250503935,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Physics-informed Neural Networks Enable High Fidelity Shear Wave Viscoelastography across Multiple organs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4MKNGMSF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03935}
}
read the original abstract

Tissue viscoelasticity has been recognized as a crucial biomechanical indicator for disease diagnosis and therapeutic monitoring. Conventional shear wave elastography techniques depend on dispersion analysis and face fundamental limitations in clinical scenarios. Particularly, limited wave propagation data with low signal-to-noise ratios, along with challenges in discriminating between dual dispersion sources stemming from viscoelasticity and finite tissue dimensions, pose great difficulties for extracting dispersion relation. In this study, we introduce SWVE-Net, a framework for shear wave viscoelasticity imaging based on a physics-informed neural network (PINN). SWVE-Net circumvents dispersion analysis by directly incorporating the viscoelasticity wave motion equation into the loss functions of the PINN. Finite element simulations reveal that SWVE-Net quantifies viscosity parameters within a wide range (0.15-1.5 Pa*s), even for samples just a few millimeters in size, where substantial wave reflections and dispersion occur. Ex vivo experiments demonstrate its applicability across various organs, including brain, liver, kidney, and spleen, each with distinct viscoelasticity. In in vivo human trials on breast and skeletal muscle tissues, SWVE-Net reliably assesses viscoelastic properties with standard deviation-to-mean ratios below 15%, highlighting robustness under real-world constraints. SWVE-Net overcomes the core limitations of conventional elastography and enables reliable viscoelastic characterization where traditional methods fall short. It holds promise for applications such as grading hepatic lipid accumulation, detecting myocardial infarction boundaries, and distinguishing malignant from benign tumors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03935 by the authors.

Figure 4
Figure 4. Inferring viscoelastic parameters of a small murine liver with SWVE-Net. (A) Photographs of a murine liver sample with the thickness at sub-centimeter scale. (B) Experimental setup with the sample placed on a gelatin block under an ultrasound probe. (C) Vertical particle velocity field 𝑣2 ∗ (first row) from experiments and predicted 𝑣2 (second row) with SWVE-Net. (D) Representative spatio-temporal velocity field at … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. In vivo application of SWVE-Net on human living soft tissues. (A) B-mode ultrasound images of the biceps and breast, red dashed square denotes the location and size of ROI. (B) Four typical snapshots of vertical particle velocities measured in breast tissue. (C) Convergence curves of predicted shear modulus and viscosity throughout the training epochs. (D) SWVE-Net predictions of vertical particle velocities. Simila… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Català-Castro, S

    F. Català-Castro, S. Ortiz-Vásquez, C. Martínez-Fernández, F. Pezzano, C. Garcia-Cabau, M. Fernández-Campo, N. Sanfeliu -Cerdán, S. Jiménez -Delgado, X. Salvatella, V . Ruprecht, Measuring age-dependent viscoelasticity of organelles, cells and organisms with time -shared optical tweezer microrheology, Nature Nanotechnology (2025) 1 -10

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Hurst, B.E

    S. Hurst, B.E. V os, M. Brandt, T. Betz, Intracellular softening and increased viscoelastic fluidity during division, Nature Physics 17(11) (2021) 1270-1276

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Chaudhuri, J

    O. Chaudhuri, J. Cooper -White, P.A. Janmey, D.J. Mooney, V .B. Shenoy, Effects of extracellular matrix viscoelasticity on cellular behaviour, Nature 584(7822) (2020) 535-546

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Y . Wu, Y . Song, J. Soto, T. Hoffman, X. Lin, A. Zhang, S. Chen, R.N. Massad, X. Han, D. Qi, Viscoelastic extracellular matrix enhances epigenetic remodeling and cellular plasticity, Nature Communications 16(1) (2025) 4054

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Patel, H.O

    A. Patel, H.O. Lee, L. Jawerth, S. Maharana, M. Jahnel, M.Y . Hein, S. Stoynov, J. Mahamid, S. Saha, T.M. Franzmann, A liquid-to-solid phase transition of the ALS protein FUS accelerated by disease mutation, Cell 162(5) (2015) 1066-1077

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    W. Fan, K. Adebowale, L. Váncza, Y . Li, M.F. Rabbi, K. Kunimoto, D. Chen, G. Mozes, D.K.-C. Chiu, Y . Li, Matrix viscoelasticity promotes liver cancer progression in the pre - cirrhotic liver, Nature 626(7999) (2024) 635-642

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Chen, J.A

    J. Chen, J.A. Talwalkar, M. Yin, K.J. Glaser, S.O. Sanderson, R.L. Ehman, Early detection of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease by using MR elastography, Radiology 259(3) (2011) 749-756

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Pislaru, M.W

    C. Pislaru, M.W. Urban, S.V . Pislaru, R.R. Kinnick, J.F. Greenleaf, Viscoelastic properties of normal and infarcted myocardium measured by a multifrequency shear wave method: comparison with pressure-segment length method, Ultrasound in medicine & biology 40(8) (2014) 1785-1795

    work page 2014

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Sack, Magnetic resonance elastography from fundamental soft -tissue mechanics to diagnostic imaging, Nature Reviews Physics 5(1) (2023) 25-42

    I. Sack, Magnetic resonance elastography from fundamental soft -tissue mechanics to diagnostic imaging, Nature Reviews Physics 5(1) (2023) 25-42

    2023

  2. [10]

    Muthupillai, D

    R. Muthupillai, D. Lomas, P. Rossman, J.F. Greenleaf, A. Manduca, R.L. Ehman, Magnetic resonance elastography by direct visualization of propagating acoustic strain waves, science 269(5232) (1995) 1854-1857

    1995

  3. [11]

    Sarvazyan, O.V

    A.P. Sarvazyan, O.V . Rudenko, S.D. Swanson, J.B. Fowlkes, S.Y . Emelianov, Shear wave elasticity imaging: a new ultrasonic technology of medical diagnostics, Ultrasound in medicine & biology 24(9) (1998) 1419-1435

    1998

  4. [12]

    Nightingale, S

    K. Nightingale, S. McAleavey, G. Trahey, Shear-wave generation using acoustic radiation force: in vivo and ex vivo results, Ultrasound in medicine & biology 29(12) (2003) 1715-1723

    2003

  5. [13]

    J. -L. Gennisson, M. Rénier, S. Catheline, C. Barrière, J. Bercoff, M. Tanter, M. Fink, Acoustoelasticity in soft solids: Assessment of the nonlinear shear modulus with the acoustic radiation force, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 122(6) (2007) 3211-3219. 25

    2007

  6. [14]

    Song, M.C

    P. Song, M.C. Macdonald, R.H. Behler, J.D. Lanning, M.H. Wang, M.W. Urban, A. Manduca, H. Zhao, M.R. Callstrom, A. Alizad, Two-dimensional shear-wave elastography on conventional ultrasound scanners with time-aligned sequential tracking (TAST) and comb-push ultrasound shear el...

    2015

  7. [15]

    Ormachea, K.J

    J. Ormachea, K.J. Parker, Comprehensive viscoelastic characterization of tissues and the inter-relationship of shear wave (group and phase) velocity, attenuation and dispersion, Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology 46(12) (2020) 3448-3459

    2020

  8. [16]

    Rouze, Y

    N.C. Rouze, Y . Deng, C.A. Trutna, M.L. Palmeri, K.R. Nightingale, Characterization of viscoelastic materials using group shear wave speeds, IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control 65(5) (2018) 780-794

    2018

  9. [17]

    X. Chen, X. Li, S. Turco, R.J. V an Sloun, M. Mischi, Ultrasound viscoelastography by acoustic radiation force: A state -of-the-art review, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Nenadic, M.W

    I.Z. Nenadic, M.W. Urban, H. Zhao, W. Sanchez, P.E. Morgan, J.F. Greenleaf, S. Chen, Application of attenuation measuring ultrasound shearwave elastography in 8 post -transplant liver patients, 2014 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium, IEEE, 2014, pp. 987-990

    2014

  11. [19]

    Rouze, M.L

    N.C. Rouze, M.L. Palmeri, K.R. Nightingale, An analytic, Fourier domain description of shear wave propagation in a viscoelastic medium using asymmetric Gaussian sources, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 138(2) (2015) 1012-1022

    2015

  12. [20]

    Rouze, Y

    N.C. Rouze, Y . Deng, M.L. Palmeri, K.R. Nightingale, Accounting for the spatial observation window in the 2 -D Fourier transform analysis of shear wave attenuation, Ultrasound in medicine & biology 43(10) (2017) 2500-2506

    2017

  13. [21]

    Kijanka, L

    P. Kijanka, L. Ambrozinski, M.W. Urban, Two point method for robust shear wave phase velocity dispersion estimation of viscoelastic materials, Ultrasound in medicine & biology 45(9) (2019) 2540-2553

    2019

  14. [22]

    Raissi, P

    M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, G.E. Karniadakis, Physics -informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations, Journal of Computational physics 378 (2019) 686-707

    2019

  15. [23]

    http://62.108.178.35:2080/v6.14/books/sub/default.htm?startat=ch01s01asb09.html

    Abaqus User Subroutines Reference Guide (6.14). http://62.108.178.35:2080/v6.14/books/sub/default.htm?startat=ch01s01asb09.html

  16. [24]

    Yin, G.-Y

    Z. Yin, G.-Y . Li, Z. Zhang, Y . Zheng, Y . Cao, SWENet: a physics-informed deep neural network (PINN) for shear wave elastography, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 43(4) (2023) 1434-1448

    2023

  17. [25]

    X. Chen, Y . Shen, Y . Zheng, H. Lin, Y . Guo, Y . Zhu, X. Zhang, T. Wang, S. Chen, Quantification of liver viscoelasticity with acoustic radiation force: a study of hepatic fibrosis in a rat model, Ultrasound in medicine & biology 39(11) (2013) 2091-2102

    2013

  18. [26]

    Chen, M.W

    S. Chen, M.W. Urban, C. Pislaru, R. Kinnick, J.F. Greenleaf, Liver elasticity and viscosity 26 quantification using shearwave dispersion ultrasound vibrometry (SDUV), 2009 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, IEEE, 2009, pp. ...

    2009

  19. [27]

    Amador, M.W

    C. Amador, M.W. Urban, S. Chen, J.F. Greenleaf, Shearwave dispersion ultrasound vibrometry (SDUV) on swine kidney, IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control 58(12) (2011) 2608-2619

    2011

  20. [28]

    Jiang, G.-Y

    Y . Jiang, G.-Y . Li, Z. Zhang, S. Ma, Y . Cao, S.-H. Y un, Incremental dynamics of prestressed viscoelastic solids and its applications in shear wave elastography, International Journal of Engineering Science 215 (2025) 104310

    2025

  21. [29]

    Ogden, Incremental statics and dynamics of pre-stressed elastic materials, Waves in nonlinear pre-stressed materials, Springer2007, pp

    R.W. Ogden, Incremental statics and dynamics of pre-stressed elastic materials, Waves in nonlinear pre-stressed materials, Springer2007, pp. 1-26

  22. [30]

    Capilnasiu, L

    A. Capilnasiu, L. Bilston, R. Sinkus, D. Nordsletten, Nonlinear viscoelastic constitutive model for bovine liver tissue, Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology 19 (2020) 1641- 1662

    2020

  23. [31]

    Rasht‐Behesht, C

    M. Rasht‐Behesht, C. Huber, K. Shukla, G.E. Karniadakis, Physics‐informed neural networks (PINNs) for wave propagation and full waveform inversions, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 127(5) (2022) e2021JB023120

    2022

  24. [32]

    Hornik, M

    K. Hornik, M. Stinchcombe, H. White, Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators, Neural networks 2(5) (1989) 359-366

    1989

  25. [33]

    Loupas, J

    T. Loupas, J. Powers, R.W. Gill, An axial velocity estimator for ultrasound blood flow imaging, based on a full evaluation of the Doppler equation by means of a two -dimensional autocorrelation approach, IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics , and frequency control ...

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.