Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2016 Nov 29;64(3):491–499. doi: 10.1109/TUFFC.2016.2633429

TABLE IV.

Shear wave velocity estimates TM phantom experiment

Algorithm ROI 4 slices 6 slices 12 slices 16 slices
MRF bkg 0.80 ± 0.13 0.76 ± 0.11 0.79 ± 0.12 0.79 ± 0.14
inc 1.53 ± 0.53 1.50 ± 0.50 1.47 ± 0.49 1.48 ± 0.49
NNB bkg 0.80 ± 0.15 0.76 ± 0.13 0.79 ± 0.14 0.79 ± 0.16
inc 1.51 ± 0.59 1.49 ± 0.57 1.45 ± 0.57 1.46 ± 0.58
LIN bkg 0.81 ± 0.13 0.77 ± 0.11 0.79 ± 0.12 0.80 ± 0.13
inc 1.43 ± 0.51 1.45 ± 0.50 1.45 ± 0.46 1.52 ± 0.60

Mean and standard deviation of shear wave velocities (in m/s) obtained from five independent datasets are shown here. The MRF reconstruction has a lower variance in all cases. (MRF = Markov random field algorithm, NNB = nearest neighbors interpolation, LIN = linear interpolation, bkg = background, inc = inclusion). When measured with a clinical ultrasound scanner (Supersonic Imagine), SWV values for the inclusion and the background were estimated at 1.2 ± 0.03 m/s and 0.9 ± 0.07 m/s respectively.