Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 43 references

2D Ultrasound Elasticity Imaging of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Using Deep Neural Networks

T0 review · 3 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 A deep learning model, trained only on finite-element simulations, can reconstruct aortic wall shear modulus from 2D ultrasound displacement fields.

desk verdict A solid feasibility study for DL-based AAA stiffness mapping from 2D ultrasound, with real multi-domain validation, but the absolute modulus numbers on real data are off by ~2x and the max-displacement normalization makes the quantitative claim fragile. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.19303 v1 pith:XUEB2PUK submitted 2025-08-25 eess.IV cs.AIcs.CV

Utsav Ratna Tuladhar , Richard Simon , Doran Mix , Michael Richards This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.AIcs.CV
keywords abdominalaorticaneurysmultrasoundelastographydeeplearninginverseelasticityproblemshearmodulusreconstructionfiniteelementsimulationU-Netmedicalimaging
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

The paper aims to show that a deep neural network trained exclusively on simulated finite-element displacement fields can replace slow iterative solvers for ultrasound elastography of abdominal aortic aneurysms. The clinical motivation is that maximum aneurysm diameter alone predicts rupture risk poorly, while wall stiffness is a direct mechanical marker that standard 2D ultrasound could measure if the inverse problem of converting displacement to shear modulus could be solved in real time. The authors report that their U-Net reconstructs shear modulus distributions from axial and lateral displacement inputs with 0.73% normalized mean squared error on simulated test data, and that the same model produces plausible stiffness maps on 3D-simulation digital phantoms, tissue-mimicking physical phantoms, and clinical patient exams. Because a prediction takes about 0.058 seconds versus about 159 seconds for the iterative baseline, the paper's contribution is a route to practical, non-invasive, quantitative stiffness imaging on hardware already used for AAA screening.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a U-Net with seven downsampling and seven upsampling layers and a latent dimension of 512, trained with the normalized mean squared error loss between predicted and ground-truth modulus images. The inputs are the axial and lateral components of the pressure-normalized displacement field, gridded to 128x128 pixels with all pixels outside the vessel wall set to zero, which gives the network an implicit segmentation of the lumen. Pressure normalization, dividing displacements by the measured pulse pressure, is what lets the network output quantitative modulus values in kPa rather than relative stiffness. The FE training set varies aneurysm radius, wall thickness, angular modulus distribution, boundary conditions, and lumen pressure across 36,000 forward models, and the network learns the inverse map from those displacement fields.

What would settle it

Take a physical phantom or ex-vivo aortic sample with an independently measured shear modulus, from mechanical testing or MR elastography, image it with the same ultrasound protocol, and compare the DL-predicted modulus to the measured value across a range from about 1 to 170 kPa; if the predicted values do not increase monotonically with true stiffness or deviate from truth by more than a clinically acceptable margin in a substantial fraction of cases, the claim that the FE-trained model generalizes would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated in its conclusion, is that a deep learning model trained only on finite-element simulated data can predict shear modulus from both simulated and experimental ultrasound elastography displacement estimates. On the 3,000-image simulated test set the model achieves a mean normalized mean squared error of 0.0073 and a mean Dice score of 0.999, indicating quantitatively close and spatially accurate modulus reconstructions. On 3D-simulation digital phantoms it matches the true upper/lower modulus ratio more closely than the iterative method at high contrast, and on physical phantoms the predicted regional modulus ratios track the independently measured values (1.09, 2.48, 5.05, 11.17 versus expected 1.00, 2.78, 5.47, 9.77). For clinical exams, where no ground truth exists, the authors show that the predicted average modulus is inversely related to the measured pressure-normalized maximum principal strain, the expected compliance relationship, for both the deep learning and iterative reconstructions. The claim is that a sufficiently diverse set of simulated training examples teaches the network the displacement-to-modulus map well enough to generalize across simulation, phantom, and clinical domains.

Load-bearing premise

The model's success beyond simulation rests on the assumption that the displacement patterns seen in real ultrasound exams are sufficiently close to the noiseless, plane-strain, angular-only-variation finite-element simulations used for training, so that what the network learned in simulation transfers to clinical measurements.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A standard 2D ultrasound system could provide near-real-time regional stiffness maps during an AAA screening exam, since inference takes about 0.058 seconds per image.
  • Stiffness, or the ratio of stiffness between wall regions, could be added to maximum diameter as a routine rupture-risk marker without new imaging hardware.
  • Training data can be generated entirely by simulation, avoiding the need for large collections of clinically measured modulus ground truth.
  • The deep learning approach matches or beats the iterative reconstruction baseline in accuracy on the tested phantoms while being thousands of times faster, making iterative-quality reconstruction feasible in clinical time.
  • Pressure-normalized displacement inputs allow the same trained network to be applied across different patients and transducers, provided pulse pressure is measured.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because training data contain no radial modulus variation, the network's clean radial reconstructions may reflect what it never saw; adding radial gradients to the FE training distribution is a direct test of whether the current phantom overestimates, such as Phantom 1 at 34.1 kPa versus its true 17.4 kPa, shrink.
  • The paper's observed inverse relationship between predicted modulus and pressure-normalized strain suggests a built-in clinical self-check: a deployed system could flag unreliable reconstructions whenever those two quantities move in the same direction rather than inversely.
  • If region-ratio rather than absolute modulus is the target biomarker, the phantom results imply the model may already be clinically useful even while absolute values are biased; a longitudinal study linking predicted ratios to rupture or growth would settle that question.
  • Adding simulated ultrasound speckle noise and out-of-plane motion to the training set is the natural next experiment, and the paper's own discussion anticipates that this would improve clinical generalization.
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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a deep-learning-based framework for 2D ultrasound elasticity imaging of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). The authors generate a large dataset of 36,000 2D plane-strain finite element simulations (30,000 training examples) with randomized vessel geometry, angular shear-modulus variations, and boundary conditions, then train a U-Net to map pressure-normalized displacement fields to shear-modulus distributions. The model is evaluated on (i) a simulated test set, where it achieves NMSE 0.0073 and DSC 0.999; (ii) COMSOL 3D digital phantoms, where it recovers modulus contrast with moderate accuracy; (iii) four physical tissue-mimicking phantoms with independently measured shear moduli, where contrast ratios are roughly preserved but absolute moduli are systematically overestimated by up to a factor of about two; and (iv) four clinical AAA ultrasound exams, where the average predicted modulus is compared against an inverse strain measure. The deep-learning reconstruction is compared with an iterative method (ITR), showing comparable contrast recovery at a fraction of the computation time (0.058 s vs. 158.57 s per example). The central claim is that a model trained only on FE simulations can predict shear modulus from experimental ultrasound elastography displacement estimates.

Significance. If the quantitative accuracy were established, this work would be a meaningful step toward real-time, non-invasive stiffness mapping of AAA walls using standard 2D ultrasound, with potential value for rupture-risk assessment beyond maximum diameter. The paper has clear strengths: a large and transparently described simulated training dataset, multi-domain evaluation (simulation, COMSOL, physical phantoms, and clinical data), inclusion of an established iterative baseline, and explicit acknowledgment of several limitations. The reported speed advantage of the deep-learning method is substantial. However, the absolute quantitative claim is currently not supported by the experimental results, because the normalization scheme makes the final modulus inversely proportional to a single displacement-amplitude scalar, and the phantom data show a factor-of-two bias. The clinical validation is partly circular. These issues are load-bearing for the stated goal of quantitative tissue characterization, but they appear addressable through additional analysis and calibration, so the work merits major revision rather than rejection.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-C, Eqs. (19)-(22); Table IV] The max-displacement normalization makes the predicted absolute modulus inversely proportional to the measured displacement amplitude. Because the network input is u_hat = u_tilde/nm and the output is rescaled by mu_dl = G/nm, the network itself is invariant to uniform scaling of the measured displacement, and the entire absolute scale is carried by the single scalar nm. Any systematic error in displacement magnitude from the two-frame, divergence-regularized registration of Eq. (8) therefore propagates directly and inversely into the final modulus. The phantom results are consistent with this: Phantom 1 (uniform 17.4 kPa) is predicted as 34.1 and 31.1 kPa for the upper and lower regions, a roughly 1.8-2.0x overestimation implying about 50% underestimation of nm. The paper acknowledges the offset only as "reasons for these offsets require further study" without identifying this mechanism. This is load-bearing because the central claim is quantitative modulus estimation from experimental data, not just relative contrast.
  2. [Section V, Fig. 12] The clinical sanity check is partly circular. The average predicted modulus and the pressure-normalized maximum principal strain are both computed from the same measured displacement field, and since the predicted modulus is inversely proportional to the maximum displacement magnitude, an inverse correlation with strain is expected a priori. This comparison therefore does not validate the absolute modulus scale against an independent reference. The authors should state this limitation explicitly and, ideally, supplement the clinical evaluation with a calibration phantom or an independent stiffness measurement, even if only in a subset of patients.
  3. [Section II-A and Discussion] The training distribution lacks radial modulus variations, includes a fixed Poisson ratio (0.45), noiseless displacement fields, and simplified boundary conditions; the authors acknowledge these points in the Discussion. However, the conclusion that the model "can be used to predict shear modulus from both simulated and experimental ultrasound elastography displacement estimates" is stronger than the evidence supports. The experimental results show large absolute bias, and the absence of radial gradients in training means the model cannot represent them by construction (the authors note that DL reconstructions lack the radial artifact seen in ITR). The quantitative generalization claim requires either additional evidence (e.g., noise-robustness studies, phantom calibration) or a more careful statement that the model is currently validated for relative, angular contrast mapping.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section II-A] The coordinates used for boundary conditions appear inconsistent with the stated domain ([-0.12, 0.12] m in x, [0, 0.20] m in y). For example, "ux(0.20, 0) = 0" and later references to x = 0.20 and x = 0.50 fall outside the stated x-range. Please clarify the coordinate convention used in the FE model.
  2. [Section III-A] The text first says "we calculated the total accumulated displacement field... from diastole to systole" and then immediately notes that "no accumulation of displacement fields was performed here." Please reconcile these statements so the methodology is unambiguous.
  3. [Tables III and IV] The term "Modular Ratio" should be "Modulus Ratio" or "shear-modulus ratio" to match standard terminology and avoid confusion with modular arithmetic.
  4. [Table I] The abbreviation "PV A % wt" should be defined (presumably polyvinyl alcohol weight percent) in the table caption or text.
  5. [Eq. (24)] The quantity defined in Eq. (24) is a relative squared error (sum of squared errors divided by sum of squared ground-truth values), not a normalized mean squared error as commonly defined. Consider renaming it or clarifying the definition.
  6. [Abstract] The abstract states the model achieves an NMSE of 0.73% on simulated data and "generalizes" to phantom data; it would be helpful to state explicitly that the 0.73% NMSE is on the simulated test set only, since the experimental results have larger errors and are quantified mainly via modulus ratios.
  7. [Figure 5] The training and validation loss curves would be easier to interpret with a logarithmic y-axis, since the NMSE drops to about 0.01 and the early training behavior is compressed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Central FE-trained DL reconstruction is not circular; only the clinical sanity check compares modulus predictions to strain derived from the same displacement fields, providing internal consistency but not independent validation.

  1. other [Section V (Discussion), clinical-data validation paragraph referencing Figure 12]
    "For each clinical case, we calculate the maximum principal strain distribution from the estimated displacement fields. ... Theoretically, εP+, which is an estimate of vessel compliance, and µavg are expected to exhibit an inverse relationship between the images. This expected trend is indeed observed in Figure 12 ... supporting the validity of our predictions even in the absence of ground truth values."

    Both the DL/ITR modulus estimates and the pressure-normalized maximum principal strain are computed from the same measured displacement fields. In a linear-elastic, nearly incompressible reconstruction under a known pressure, modulus is inversely proportional to strain by the constitutive model, so the observed correlation between μavg and 1/εP+ is largely forced by the reconstruction mechanics rather than being an independent confirmation of absolute modulus accuracy. The check is therefore a consistency test, not a ground-truth validation; this is a mild circularity in the clinical validation step, not in the FE-based training or phantom evaluation.

full rationale

The main derivation chain is self-contained: the U-Net is trained on 36,000 paired FE simulations (Section II-A) and evaluated against held-out FE test data (NMSE 0.0073), then tested on independent COMSOL digital phantoms and physical phantoms with independently characterized moduli (Tables III, IV). The pressure normalization (Eqs. 6-7) and max-displacement normalization (Eqs. 19-22) are deterministic bijective scalings, not fitted parameters; they do make the absolute modulus scale depend on the measured displacement amplitude, which is a real robustness/correctness concern for real-data generalization, but it is not a circular derivation. Prior-work self-citations (registration [31], phantom protocol [24], iterative method [18]) are method citations and do not by themselves establish the paper's claims. The only mild circularity is the clinical sanity check, which validates modulus against strain computed from the same displacement fields; for a linear-elastic model this inverse relationship is essentially mechanical identity. Thus no prediction in the central claim reduces to its input by construction, and the overall circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that FE-simulated, noiseless, 2D plane-strain displacement fields are a sufficient training distribution for real ultrasound data. This is an explicit modeling choice (Section II-A) and is acknowledged as a limitation in the Discussion. The listed free parameters are the hand-chosen simulation ranges and architecture settings; none are fitted to the evaluation targets, so the circularity burden is low.

free parameters (6)
  • Shear modulus training range = 0.25 to 10 kPa
    Hand-chosen range for the vessel wall in the FE training data (Section II-A). Because the absolute scale is recovered through the measured maximum displacement, the network only learns relative modulus patterns, but the range determines which relative contrasts are seen.
  • Background shear modulus (μb) = 5 Pa
    Set constant in all training simulations (Section II-A). The soft background affects the displacement field inside the wall even though the network inputs are masked to the vessel.
  • Poisson ratio (ν) = 0.45 (registration and ITR), 0.495 (COMSOL)
    Fixed near-incompressibility assumption in the forward FE model and registration (Sections II-A, III-A). Different compressibility changes the displacement fields substantially.
  • Geometry perturbation ranges = r0 1.5-2.5 cm, Ai 0-1 cm, h0 5 mm, Bi 0-5 mm
    Hand-chosen ranges for inner radius and wall thickness in Eq. 1-2, intended to cover the AAA population (Section II-A).
  • Lumen pressure range = 1 to 8 kPa
    Randomly sampled pressure loading in training (Section II-A). Inputs are pressure-normalized, so this range affects the distribution of scaling factors.
  • U-Net architecture and training schedule = 7 encoder/decoder layers, latent 512, 500 epochs, NMSE loss
    Architecture choices (Section III-C). Learning rate, optimizer, batch size, and random seed are not reported.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Aortic wall and surrounding tissue behave as a linearly elastic, nearly incompressible material under plane strain.
    Used in the FE forward model (Section II-A), registration regularization (Eq. 9), and ITR reconstruction. Real tissue is nonlinear, anisotropic, and viscoelastic.
  • domain assumption The shear modulus distribution is the only unknown; Poisson ratio and density are known and fixed.
    The inverse problem reconstructs only the shear modulus inside the vessel wall (Sections II-A, III-B).
  • domain assumption The displacement field inside the vessel wall contains sufficient information to determine the relative modulus distribution.
    The DL model learns this mapping from FE data; elastography inverse problems are otherwise ill-posed without regularization or priors.
  • domain assumption Quasi-static systolic-diastolic deformation can be approximated by static pressure loading in the FE simulations.
    Training and COMSOL data use static pressure boundary conditions to represent the cardiac pulse (Sections II-A, II-B).
  • standard math Standard numerical methods: finite element discretization, convergence of neural network training, and the U-Net architecture can represent the inverse mapping.
    The paper assumes standard FE theory and empirical deep learning practice without formal guarantees.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 2D Ultrasound Elasticity Imaging of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Using Deep Neural Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XUEB2PUK

@misc{pith2026250819303,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 2D Ultrasound Elasticity Imaging of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Using Deep Neural Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XUEB2PUK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19303}
}
read the original abstract

Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) pose a significant clinical risk due to their potential for rupture, which is often asymptomatic but can be fatal. Although maximum diameter is commonly used for risk assessment, diameter alone is insufficient as it does not capture the properties of the underlying material of the vessel wall, which play a critical role in determining the risk of rupture. To overcome this limitation, we propose a deep learning-based framework for elasticity imaging of AAAs with 2D ultrasound. Leveraging finite element simulations, we generate a diverse dataset of displacement fields with their corresponding modulus distributions. We train a model with U-Net architecture and normalized mean squared error (NMSE) to infer the spatial modulus distribution from the axial and lateral components of the displacement fields. This model is evaluated across three experimental domains: digital phantom data from 3D COMSOL simulations, physical phantom experiments using biomechanically distinct vessel models, and clinical ultrasound exams from AAA patients. Our simulated results demonstrate that the proposed deep learning model is able to reconstruct modulus distributions, achieving an NMSE score of 0.73\%. Similarly, in phantom data, the predicted modular ratio closely matches the expected values, affirming the model's ability to generalize to phantom data. We compare our approach with an iterative method which shows comparable performance but higher computation time. In contrast, the deep learning method can provide quick and effective estimates of tissue stiffness from ultrasound images, which could help assess the risk of AAA rupture without invasive procedures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19303 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FE simulation parameters: (a) illustrates different boundary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Experimental phantom setup and phantom model [24] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. COMSOL 3D simulation model. (a) highlights the upper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Deep learning U-NET model featuring a NMSE loss function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Training curve for the deep learning model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) B-mode image of Phantom 1, (b) FE mesh structure used [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: COMSOL simulation results for (a) COMSOL model 1, (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: B-mode images of clinical patients with annotation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Results for (a) phantom 1, (b) phantom 2, (c) phantom 3, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Results for clinical patient (a) 1, (b) 2, (c) 3, and (d) 4, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Plot showing the relationship between the average modulus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abdominal aortic aneurysm: A comprehensive review,

    S. Aggarwal, A. Qamar, V . Sharma, and A. Sharma, “Abdominal aortic aneurysm: A comprehensive review,” Experimental & Clinical Cardiology, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 11, 2011

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    Abdominal aortic aneurysm: popula- tions at risk and how to screen,

    R. L. Pande and J. A. Beckman, “Abdominal aortic aneurysm: popula- tions at risk and how to screen,” Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. S2–S8, 2008

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    Analysis of risk factors for abdominal aortic aneurysm in a cohort of more than 3 million individuals,

    K. C. Kent, R. M. Zwolak, N. N. Egorova, T. S. Riles, A. Manganaro, A. J. Moskowitz, A. C. Gelijns, and G. Greco, “Analysis of risk factors for abdominal aortic aneurysm in a cohort of more than 3 million individuals,” Journal of vascular surgery , vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 539–548, 2010

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: a best-evidence systematic review for the us preventive services task force,

    C. Fleming, E. P. Whitlock, T. L. Beil, and F. A. Lederle, “Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: a best-evidence systematic review for the us preventive services task force,” Annals of internal medicine , vol. 142, no. 3, pp. 203–211, 2005

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    Ultrasound screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: current practice, challenges and controversies,

    R. A. Benson, L. Meecham, O. Fisher, and I. M. Loftus, “Ultrasound screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: current practice, challenges and controversies,” The British journal of radiology , vol. 91, no. 1090, p. 20170306, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    The validity of ultrasonographic scanning as screening method for abdominal aortic aneurysm,

    J. Lindholt, S. Vammen, S. Juul, E. Henneberg, and H. Fasting, “The validity of ultrasonographic scanning as screening method for abdominal aortic aneurysm,” European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 472–475, 1999

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    Is ultrasound more accurate than axial computed tomography for determination of maximal abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter?

    L. Sprouse Ii, G. Meier III, F. Parent, R. DeMasi, M. Glickman, and G. Barber, “Is ultrasound more accurate than axial computed tomography for determination of maximal abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter?” European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery , vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 28–35, 2004

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    D. C. Brewster, J. L. Cronenwett, J. W. Hallett Jr, K. W. Johnston, W. C. Krupski, and J. S. Matsumura, “Guidelines for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms: report of a subcommittee of the joint council of the american association for vascular surgery and society for vascular surgery,” Journal of vascular surgery , vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 1106–1117, 2003

    work page 2003

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Assessing the potential risk of rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysms,

    S. Khan, V . Verma, S. Verma, S. Polzer, and S. Jha, “Assessing the potential risk of rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysms,” Clinical radiology, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 11–20, 2015

    2015

  2. [10]

    Review of current theories for abdominal aortic aneurysm pathogenesis,

    I. M. Nordon, R. J. Hinchliffe, P. J. Holt, I. M. Loftus, and M. M. Thompson, “Review of current theories for abdominal aortic aneurysm pathogenesis,” Vascular, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 253–263, 2009

    2009

  3. [11]

    Biomechanics of abdominal aortic aneurysm,

    D. A. V orp, “Biomechanics of abdominal aortic aneurysm,” Journal of Biomechanics, vol. 40, no. 9, pp. 1887–1902, 2007. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002192900600323X

    1902

  4. [12]

    Biomechanical determinants of abdomi- nal aortic aneurysm rupture,

    D. A. V orp and J. P. V . Geest, “Biomechanical determinants of abdomi- nal aortic aneurysm rupture,” Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 1558–1566, 2005

    2005

  5. [13]

    Biomechanical rupture risk assessment,

    T. C. Gasser, “Biomechanical rupture risk assessment,” Aorta, vol. 4, no. 02, pp. 42–60, 2016

    2016

  6. [14]

    Arterial stiffness and novel biomarkers in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms,

    N. P. Kadoglou, I. Papadakis, K. G. Moulakakis, I. Ikonomidis, M. Alepaki, P. Moustardas, S. Lampropoulos, P. Karakitsos, J. Lekakis, and C. D. Liapis, “Arterial stiffness and novel biomarkers in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms,” Regulatory peptides , vol. 179, no. 1-...

    2012

  7. [15]

    Abdominal aortic aneurysm wall mechanics and their relation to risk of rupture,

    B. Sonesson, T. Sandgren, and T. L ¨anne, “Abdominal aortic aneurysm wall mechanics and their relation to risk of rupture,” European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery , vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 487–493, 1999

    1999

  8. [16]

    Ultrasound elastography: principles and techniques,

    J.-L. Gennisson, T. Deffieux, M. Fink, and M. Tanter, “Ultrasound elastography: principles and techniques,” Diagnostic and interventional imaging, vol. 94, no. 5, pp. 487–495, 2013

    2013

  9. [17]

    Ultrasound elastography: review of techniques and clinical applications,

    R. M. Sigrist, J. Liau, A. El Kaffas, M. C. Chammas, and J. K. Willmann, “Ultrasound elastography: review of techniques and clinical applications,” Theranostics, vol. 7, no. 5, p. 1303, 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Investigating the impact of spatial priors on the performance of model-based ivus elastography,

    M. Richards and M. M. Doyley, “Investigating the impact of spatial priors on the performance of model-based ivus elastography,” Physics in Medicine & Biology , vol. 56, no. 22, p. 7223, 2011. JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2015 13

    2011

  11. [19]

    A deep learning framework to estimate elastic modulus from ultrasound measured displacement fields,

    U. R. Tuladhar, R. A. Simon, C. A. Linte, and M. S. Richards, “A deep learning framework to estimate elastic modulus from ultrasound measured displacement fields,” in Proceedings of SPIE–the International Society for Optical Engineering , vol. 12470, 2023, p. 124700P

    2023

  12. [20]

    A feasibility study of elastography on abdominal aneurysms,

    J. Fromageau, S. Lerouge, G. Soulez, I. Salazkin, J. Raymond, and G. Cloutier, “A feasibility study of elastography on abdominal aneurysms,” in IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium, 2005. , vol. 1. IEEE, 2005, pp. 257–260

    2005

  13. [21]

    In vivo assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysm wall strain using 2d and 3d b-mode ultrasound and dynamic CT scan,

    V . Bonnardeaux, R. Moore, M.-H. Roy-Cardinal, V . Guerrera, E. Therasse, C. C. Lefebvre, S. Amouri, E. D. Martino, A. Forneris, G. Cloutier, and G. Soulez, “In vivo assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysm wall strain using 2d and 3d b-mode ultrasound and dynamic CT scan,” vol...

  14. [22]

    Performance comparison of ultrasound-based methods to assess aortic diameter and stiffness in normal and aneurysmal mice,

    B. Trachet, R. A. Fraga-Silva, F. J. Londono, A. Swillens, N. Ster- giopulos, and P. Segers, “Performance comparison of ultrasound-based methods to assess aortic diameter and stiffness in normal and aneurysmal mice,” PloS one, vol. 10, no. 5, p. e0129007, 2015

    2015

  15. [23]

    Feasibility of shear wave sonoelastography to detect endoleak and evaluate thrombus organization after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm,

    N. V oizard, A. Bertrand-Grenier, H. Alturkistani, E. Therasse, A. Tang, C. Kauffmann, G. Cloutier, and G. Soulez, “Feasibility of shear wave sonoelastography to detect endoleak and evaluate thrombus organization after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm,” vol. 30...

    doi

  16. [24]

    Detecting regional stiffness changes in aortic aneurysmal geometries using pressure-normalized strain,

    D. S. Mix, L. Yang, C. C. Johnson, N. Couper, B. Zarras, I. Arabadjis, L. E. Trakimas, M. C. Stoner, S. W. Day, and M. S. Richards, “Detecting regional stiffness changes in aortic aneurysmal geometries using pressure-normalized strain,” Ultrasound in medicine & biology , vol. ...

    2017

  17. [25]

    Quantification of aortic stiffness and wall stress in healthy volunteers and abdominal aortic aneurysm patients using time-resolved 3d ultrasound: a comparison study,

    E. M. van Disseldorp, N. J. Petterson, F. N. van de V osse, M. R. van Sambeek, and R. G. Lopata, “Quantification of aortic stiffness and wall stress in healthy volunteers and abdominal aortic aneurysm patients using time-resolved 3d ultrasound: a comparison study,”European Hea...

    2019

  18. [26]

    Compliance of abdominal aortic aneurysms evaluated by tissue doppler imaging: correlation with aneurysm size,

    A. Long, L. Rouet, A. Bissery, P. Rossignol, D. Mouradian, and M. Sapoval, “Compliance of abdominal aortic aneurysms evaluated by tissue doppler imaging: correlation with aneurysm size,” Journal of vascular surgery, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 18–26, 2005

    2005

  19. [27]

    Image-to-image translation with conditional adversarial networks,

    P. Isola, J.-Y . Zhu, T. Zhou, and A. A. Efros, “Image-to-image translation with conditional adversarial networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2017, pp. 1125– 1134

    2017

  20. [28]

    Deep learning in ultrasound elastography imaging: A review,

    H. Li, M. Bhatt, Z. Qu, S. Zhang, M. C. Hartel, A. Khademhosseini, and G. Cloutier, “Deep learning in ultrasound elastography imaging: A review,” Medical Physics, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Direct recon- struction of ultrasound elastography using an end-to-end deep neural network,

    S. Wu, Z. Gao, Z. Liu, J. Luo, H. Zhang, and S. Li, “Direct recon- struction of ultrasound elastography using an end-to-end deep neural network,” in International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention. Springer, 2018, pp. 374–382

    2018

  22. [30]

    Learning the implicit strain reconstruction in ultrasound elastography using privileged information,

    Z. Gao, S. Wu, Z. Liu, J. Luo, H. Zhang, M. Gong, and S. Li, “Learning the implicit strain reconstruction in ultrasound elastography using privileged information,” Medical image analysis , vol. 58, p. 101534, 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Ultrasound elastic modulus reconstruction using a deep learning model trained with simulated data,

    U. R. Tuladhar, R. A. Simon, C. A. Linte, and M. S. Richards, “Ultrasound elastic modulus reconstruction using a deep learning model trained with simulated data,” Journal of Medical Imaging, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 017 001–017 001, 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    Deepaaa: clinically applicable and generalizable detection of abdominal aortic aneurysm us- ing deep learning,

    J.-T. Lu, R. Brooks, S. Hahn, J. Chen, V . Buch, G. Kotecha, K. P. Andriole, B. Ghoshhajra, J. Pinto, P. V ozila et al., “Deepaaa: clinically applicable and generalizable detection of abdominal aortic aneurysm us- ing deep learning,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer Ass...

    2019

  25. [33]

    Automatic detection, segmentation and classification of abdominal aortic aneurysm using deep learning,

    H. A. Hong and U. Sheikh, “Automatic detection, segmentation and classification of abdominal aortic aneurysm using deep learning,” in 2016 IEEE 12th International Colloquium on Signal Processing & Its Applications (CSPA). IEEE, 2016, pp. 242–246

    2016

  26. [34]

    Automatic segmentation of abdominal aortic aneurysms from time-resolved 3-d ultrasound images using deep learning,

    E. J. Maas, N. Awasthi, E. G. van Pelt, M. R. van Sambeek, and R. G. Lopata, “Automatic segmentation of abdominal aortic aneurysms from time-resolved 3-d ultrasound images using deep learning,” IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control , vol. 71, ...

    2024

  27. [35]

    Abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter versus volume: a systematic review,

    G. Vait ˙enas, V . Mosenko, A. Ra ˇcyt˙e, K. Medelis, A. Skreb ¯unas, and T. Baltr ¯unas, “Abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter versus volume: a systematic review,” Biomedicines, vol. 11, no. 3, p. 941, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Intraluminal abdominal aortic aneurysm thrombus is associated with disruption of wall integrity,

    D. Koole, H. J. Zandvoort, A. Schoneveld, A. Vink, J. A. V os, L. L. van den Hoogen, J.-P. P. de Vries, G. Pasterkamp, F. L. Moll, and J. A. van Herwaarden, “Intraluminal abdominal aortic aneurysm thrombus is associated with disruption of wall integrity,”Journal of vascular su...

    2013

  29. [37]

    Intermediate pressure-normalized principal wall strain values are associated with increased abdominal aortic aneurysmal growth rates,

    Z. R. Zottola, D. S. Kong, A. N. Medhekar, L. E. Frye, S. B. Hao, D. W. Gonring, A. A. Hirad, M. C. Stoner, M. S. Richards, and D. S. Mix, “Intermediate pressure-normalized principal wall strain values are associated with increased abdominal aortic aneurysmal growth rates,” Fr...

    2023

  30. [38]

    Gmsh: a three-dimensional finite element mesh generator with built-in pre- and post-processing facilities,

    C. Geuzaine and J.-F. Remacle, “Gmsh: a three-dimensional finite element mesh generator with built-in pre- and post-processing facilities,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering , vol. 79, no. 11, pp. 1309–1331, 2009

    2009

  31. [39]

    T. J. Hughes, The finite element method: linear static and dynamic finite element analysis. Courier Corporation, 2003

    2003

  32. [40]

    Importance of input data normalization for the application of neural networks to complex industrial problems,

    J. Sola and J. Sevilla, “Importance of input data normalization for the application of neural networks to complex industrial problems,” IEEE Transactions on nuclear science , vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 1464–1468, 1997

    1997

  33. [41]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,” in Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international con- ference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceedings, part III 18 ...

    2015

  34. [42]

    Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species,

    L. R. Dice, “Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species,” Ecology, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 297–302, 1945

    1945

  35. [43]

    In vivo aortic mr elastography in abdominal aortic aneurysm patients: A potential biomarker for predicting aneurysmal events

    H. Dong, B. Raterman, M. Eisner, G. Brock, R. D. White, J. Starr, M. Haurani, M. Go, P. Vaccaro, and A. Kolipaka, “In vivo aortic mr elastography in abdominal aortic aneurysm patients: A potential biomarker for predicting aneurysmal events.”

Pith tools

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