Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 34 references

Deep Task-Based Beamforming and Channel Data Augmentations for Enhanced Ultrasound Imaging

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Task-based deep learning beamformers—especially one that classifies at the channel-data bottleneck—produce breast ultrasound images with better lesion contrast and clinical relevance than DAS, MV, or task-free deep beamforming.

desk verdict Plausible task-based beamforming extension with a genuinely new CDCB bottleneck classifier and Channel Data SpecAugment, but the clinical-relevance claim is untested because no classification results are reported. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00524 v1 pith:6YEEINWV submitted 2025-02-01 eess.IV

Ariel Amar , Ahuva Grubstein , Eli Atar , Keren Peri-Hanania , Nimrod Glazer , Ronnie Rosen , Shlomi Savariego , Yonina C. Eldar This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IV
keywords ultrasoundbeamformingtask-baseddeeplearningchanneldataaugmentationbreastlesionclassificationminimumvarianceUNetspecklenoise
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

This paper tries to show that a deep-learning ultrasound beamformer can be improved by making it do a clinical task while forming the image. Using breast-lesion classification as the task, the authors train two variants: one that classifies the beamformed image and feeds that back, and one that classifies a compressed channel-data representation inside the network's bottleneck. They report that both beat conventional delay-and-sum and minimum-variance beamforming, and that the channel-data classifier (CDCB) is the best. The reason to care is that clinical ultrasound is judged by whether lesions are visible and diagnosable, not just by pixel accuracy against a reference. If the claim holds, embedding task information at the raw-data level is a way to get more diagnostically useful images without a higher-quality physical reference.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the UNet-based beamformer with a classification task attached at two possible points. In CDCB, a ChannelAttention module at the bottleneck reweights the compressed channel-data tensor, and convolutional layers plus a fully connected layer classify it as benign or malignant while the decoder still produces the beamformed image; this classification loss acts as a regularizer that highlights clinically relevant features. In JBC, a ViT image classifier is trained alongside the beamformer and its cross-entropy feedback is added to the beamforming loss. Both are trained to regress to MV beamformed images using MSE plus MS-SSIM loss, and the channel-data augmentations are applied to the raw input during training.

What would settle it

Train CDCB, JBC, and UBB on simulated or ex vivo channel data for which a true scattering ground truth exists, and compare them against MV on that ground truth; if CDCB does not beat MV when the target is not an MV image, the reported superiority depends on the surrogate label rather than on task-based learning.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated in the paper's own terms, is that task-based beamforming—training the beamformer jointly with a lesion-classification objective—yields ultrasound images with higher contrast between lesion and surrounding tissue, and greater clinical relevance, than conventional DAS, MV, or a UNet beamformer trained only to regress to MV images. The CDCB variant, which places the classification head at the UNet bottleneck and thus constrains the channel-data representation, outperforms the JBC variant, which classifies the output image. The paper also claims that its new channel-data augmentations (speckle noise, Gaussian noise, Channel Data SpecAugment, subsampling and masking, and coarse dropout) improve image quality, especially for CDCB, as measured by CNR, gCNR, and CR after histogram matching. Across all comparisons, the CDCB model is reported as the best performer in both image quality and clinical relevance.

Load-bearing premise

The whole training pipeline regresses to MV beamformed images as ground truth, so if MV images are not a reliable target for breast-lesion appearance, any apparent improvement over MV could be partly learned from MV's own imperfections.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, clinical task feedback at the channel-data level (CDCB) is a stronger regularizer than feedback at the image level (JBC), so future beamformers should attach task heads deep in the network rather than only at the output.
  • If CDCB truly beats MV while remaining a single forward pass, it offers a route to real-time beamforming with higher contrast than the computationally heavy MV method.
  • If the channel-data augmentations are what make the difference, similar corruptions (speckle, masking, and spectral masking) can be used to train other channel-data-based ultrasound networks when in-vivo data are scarce.
  • If the framework generalizes as the paper suggests, the same dual-beamformer-plus-task design can be applied to segmentation, detection, or regression tasks beyond breast-lesion classification.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the CDCB gains could also come partly from added parameters and regularization at the bottleneck rather than from the clinical task itself; an ablation with a randomly labeled classification head would separate the two.
  • Editorial inference: if the breast-lesion classifier at the bottleneck is actually learning meaningful features, the bottleneck representation could double as a feature extractor for downstream tasks such as lesion segmentation or BI-RADS scoring, which the paper does not test.
  • Editorial inference: because MV images are the training target throughout, the method inherits MV's bias; the clinical-relevance claim would be stronger if validated against biopsy-confirmed outcomes or an independent radiologist rating rather than contrast metrics alone.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a deep-learning framework for task-based ultrasound beamforming. It introduces two architectures: JBC, which jointly trains a UNet beamformer with a ViT classifier that provides feedback on the generated image, and CDCB, which adds a classification head to the UNet bottleneck so that classification operates on the channel-data representation. The authors also propose several channel-data augmentations (speckle noise, Channel Data SpecAugment, subsampling/masking, and coarse dropout) and train all models using MV beamformed images as surrogate ground truth. On a test set of 4 in-vivo patients (100 frames each), the reported contrast metrics (CNR, gCNR, CR) indicate that DL-based beamformers outperform DAS and MV, and that CDCB achieves the best contrast among all methods.

Significance. If validated, the idea of coupling a clinical classification task directly to the beamforming optimization, and in particular at the channel-data bottleneck, is a useful and timely contribution to DL-based ultrasound imaging. The channel-data augmentation recipes are described in sufficient detail to be reproducible, and the use of real in-vivo breast ultrasound data is a strength. However, the manuscript currently does not provide task-level evidence for the central 'clinical relevance' claim: no classification accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, or AUC is reported for JBC or CDCB. The comparison against MV is also confounded because MV images serve as the training target, and the statistical analysis pools correlated frames from only four patients. These are load-bearing gaps, but they are addressable in revision, so the contribution is worth further consideration rather than rejection.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV-C, Table I] The claim in Section IV-C that 'the integration of channel data augmentations led to a notable improvement in performance' is not supported by Table I for the baseline UBB: CNR is unchanged (5.23 vs. 5.23 dB) and CR decreases slightly (8.65 vs. 8.60 dB); JBC CR also decreases (8.58 vs. 8.31 dB). Only CDCB improves on all three metrics. Because the augmentation contribution is one of the two headline contributions, the authors should either report a statistical test that justifies 'significantly improves' or limit the claim to the specific configurations where the improvement is consistent.
  2. [Abstract, IV-C, V] The central claim that task-based beamformers improve 'clinical relevance' is unverified: no classification accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, or AUC is reported for JBC or CDCB, even though Eqs. (8)-(10) define classification losses and the clinical task is breast-lesion classification. The reported CNR/gCNR/CR are pixel-statistics contrast measures computed on manually drawn ROIs, not task-performance measures. The authors should report held-out classification metrics for the ViT and the CDCB classifier head, and ideally task-level performance on the beamformed images, before claiming clinical relevance.
  3. [IV-A, Table II] The comparison against MV is confounded because MV beamformed images are used as the training target (Section IV-A), yet MV appears as a baseline in Table II. Any DL model trained with an MSE+MS-SSIM loss toward MV can show lower variance and higher contrast than MV itself, so the reported gains over MV do not by themselves establish that task integration is the cause. The authors should address this circularity, for example by reporting (i) the distance between DL outputs and MV in terms of the training loss, (ii) performance of the UBB baseline trained on DAS targets, or (iii) task-level metrics that are not defined by similarity to MV.
  4. [IV-C] The statistics are not adequate for the claims. The test set consists of 4 patients and 100 frames per patient, and the metrics appear to pool all 400 frames as independent samples. Frames from the same patient are highly correlated, so the standard deviations and point estimates in Tables I-II cannot support conclusions about methods without patient-level aggregation or paired tests. The differences among DL methods (e.g., CDCB CNR 5.65 vs. UBB 5.23 dB) are smaller than the reported standard deviations, and no significance testing is reported. Please report per-patient results, confidence intervals, and a paired test across patients, and state explicitly that the 4 test patients are disjoint from the training patients.
minor comments (6)
  1. [IV-B] The contrast metrics are computed 'after histogram matching to DAS images'; this normalization should be justified, since it can reduce or remove absolute contrast differences between methods and may affect the reported CR/CNR values in favor of methods whose histograms are closer to DAS.
  2. [II-C, Eq. (9)] The scalar γ is described as balancing the beamforming loss and the classification feedback loss, but no sensitivity analysis is provided; given the very different scales of MSE and cross-entropy, a brief discussion or ablation of γ would improve confidence in the reported results.
  3. [III, Algorithm 1] The indexing in Algorithm 1 is confusing: the line '˜Xi,˜j,k,l ← Xi,j,k,l' with the condition 'j ∈ {p | p ∈ [C] ∧ p|S}' does not clearly define which channels are sliced; please rewrite this step with explicit index sets.
  4. [III] The augmentation probabilities are specified in prose (e.g., speckle noise with p=0.5, Gaussian noise with p=1/3, coarse dropout with p=1/3), but a precise schedule of which augmentations are applied per batch, and whether they are mutually exclusive or composed, is needed for reproducibility.
  5. [IV-D] The text in Section IV-D refers to 'lesion detection' although the clinical task throughout the paper is lesion classification; please use consistent terminology.
  6. [I] There is a typo in the introduction: 'Weiner Beamforming' should be 'Wiener Beamforming.' Also, reference [31] appears to be a duplicate of the arXiv preprint cited elsewhere; please unify the citation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No constructed circularity: the reported contrast metrics are computed independently of the training losses, and no equation reduces a prediction to a fitted input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The beamformers are trained with L_UBB = lambda/N ||yhat - y||^2 + (1-lambda) L_MS-SSIM (Eq. 7) plus classification losses (Eqs. 9-10), while the reported evaluations are CNR, gCNR, and CR (Eqs. 14-16) computed after histogram matching to DAS images. No term in the evaluation metrics is equal to any term in the training losses, and no equation shows that regressing toward MV images forces CNR/gCNR/CR to exceed MV; the reported evaluation is on frames from 4 patients, and the MV baseline is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The use of MV images as surrogate labels ("To address the lack of GT images, we use MV beamformed images as surrogate labels, following previous studies [8], [31]") is a methodological choice that makes the DL models inherit MV's limitations, but it is a training-target assumption, not a circular identification. Self-citations [8], [24], and [25] are precedents for surrogate labels, ToF correction, and subsampling, respectively; none is load-bearing for the central claim, which rests on the paper's own specified losses and metrics. Two genuine weaknesses are not circularity: no classification accuracy is reported for JBC or CDCB, so the "clinical relevance" claim is unsupported; and Table I shows UBB CNR unchanged (5.23 vs 5.23) and CR slightly lower (8.65 vs 8.60) with augmentations, contradicting the text's claim that augmentations "significantly improve image quality." These are missing-support and correctness issues, not reductions of outputs to inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard DL hyperparameters chosen by hand (loss weights, augmentation noise levels) and on domain assumptions about the validity of MV as training target, the meaning of contrast metrics, and the statistical independence of test frames. No new physical entities or mechanisms are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • lambda (loss balance) = 0.8
    Weights MSE vs MS-SSIM loss in Eq. (7); chosen by hand, affects all DL beamformer training.
  • gamma (JBC feedback scale) = 100
    Scales the classification feedback loss in Eq. (9); chosen by hand for the JBC model.
  • speckle noise level sigma^2 = 4.5
    Noise variance in Algorithm 1, chosen for channel data augmentation.
  • number of noisy channels C_tilde = 25
    Number of transmitting elements corrupted in Algorithm 1, chosen by hand.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption MV beamformed images are adequate surrogate ground truth for training.
    Section I states: 'To address the lack of GT images, we use MV beamformed images as surrogate labels, following previous studies [8], [31].' The DL beamformer inherits any MV limitations.
  • domain assumption Contrast metrics (CNR, gCNR, CR) on manually segmented ROIs capture clinical relevance.
    Section IV.B defines these metrics; the paper equates higher contrast with clinical relevance without measuring diagnostic performance.
  • domain assumption Test frames from 4 patients are treated as independent samples.
    Section IV.C: 'Each patient contributed 100 frames for analysis'; reported mean and std pool frames across patients, ignoring within-patient correlation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep Task-Based Beamforming and Channel Data Augmentations for Enhanced Ultrasound Imaging." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6YEEINWV

@misc{pith2026250200524,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep Task-Based Beamforming and Channel Data Augmentations for Enhanced Ultrasound Imaging},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6YEEINWV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00524}
}
read the original abstract

This paper introduces a deep learning (DL)-based framework for task-based ultrasound (US) beamforming, aiming to enhance clinical outcomes by integrating specific clinical tasks directly into the beamforming process. Task-based beamforming optimizes the beamformer not only for image quality but also for performance on a particular clinical task, such as lesion classification. The proposed framework explores two approaches: (1) a Joint Beamformer and Classifier (JBC) that classifies the US images generated by the beamformer to provide feedback for image quality improvement; and (2) a Channel Data Classifier Beamformer (CDCB) that incorporates classification directly at the channel data representation within the beamformer's bottleneck layer. Additionally, we introduce channel data augmentations to address challenges posed by noisy and limited in-vivo data. Numerical evaluations demonstrate that training with channel data augmentations significantly improves image quality. The proposed methods were evaluated against conventional Delay-and-Sum (DAS) and Minimum Variance (MV) beamforming techniques, demonstrating superior performance in terms of both image contrast and clinical relevance. Among all methods, the CDCB approach achieves the best results, outperforming others in terms of image quality and clinical relevance. These approaches exhibit significant potential for improving clinical relevance and image quality in ultrasound imaging.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00524 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. In the JBC approach, the UBB model and the Clinical Task Network are trained simultaneously with separate optimizers. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. In the CDCB approach, the UNet model is extended with a classification head at the bottleneck, allowing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of beamforming techniques on images of benign lesions. Each subfigure depicts a different benign lesion, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of beamforming techniques on images of malignant lesions. Each subfigure depicts a different malignant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Wiener beamforming and the coherence factor in ultrasound imaging,

    C.-I. C. Nilsen and S. Holm, “Wiener beamforming and the coherence factor in ultrasound imaging,” IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferro- electrics, and Frequency Control , vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 1329–1346, 2010

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    iMAP beam- forming for high-quality high frame rate imaging,

    T. Chernyakova, D. Cohen, M. Shoham, and Y . C. Eldar, “iMAP beam- forming for high-quality high frame rate imaging,” IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control , vol. 66, no. 12, pp. 1830–1844, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    High-resolution frequency-wavenumber spectrum analysis,

    J. Capon, “High-resolution frequency-wavenumber spectrum analysis,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 57, no. 8, pp. 1408–1418, 1969

    1969

  4. [4]

    Deep learning in ultrasound imaging,

    R. J. G. van Sloun, R. Cohen, and Y . C. Eldar, “Deep learning in ultrasound imaging,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 108, no. 1, pp. 11– 29, 2020

    2020

  5. [5]

    A survey on deep learning in medical ultrasound imaging,

    K. Song, J. Feng, and D. Chen, “A survey on deep learning in medical ultrasound imaging,” Frontiers in Physics, vol. 12, p. 1398393, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Deep learning for ultrasound image formation: CUBDL evaluation framework and open datasets,

    D. Hyun, A. Wiacek, S. Goudarzi, S. Rothl ¨ubbers, A. Asif, K. Eickel, Y . C. Eldar, J. Huang, M. Mischi, H. Rivaz et al. , “Deep learning for ultrasound image formation: CUBDL evaluation framework and open datasets,” IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control, vol. 68, no. 12, pp. 3466–3483, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Efficient B-mode ultrasound image reconstruction from sub-sampled RF data using deep learning,

    Y . H. Yoon, S. Khan, J. Huh, and J. C. Ye, “Efficient B-mode ultrasound image reconstruction from sub-sampled RF data using deep learning,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging , vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 325–336, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Adaptive ultrasound beamforming using deep learning,

    B. Luijten, R. Cohen, F. J. de Bruijn, H. A. Schmeitz, M. Mischi, Y . C. Eldar, and R. J. van Sloun, “Adaptive ultrasound beamforming using deep learning,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 39, no. 12, pp. 3967–3978, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Deep learning-based universal beam- former for ultrasound imaging,

    S. Khan, J. Huh, and J. C. Ye, “Deep learning-based universal beam- former for ultrasound imaging,” in International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. Springer, 2019, pp. 619–627

    2019

  2. [10]

    Adaptive and compressive beamforming using deep learning for medical ultrasound,

    S. Khan, J. Huh, and J. C. Ye, “Adaptive and compressive beamforming using deep learning for medical ultrasound,” IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control , vol. 67, no. 8, pp. 1558–1572, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Switchable and tunable deep beamformer using adaptive instance normalization for medical ultrasound,

    S. Khan, J. Huh, and J. C. Ye, “Switchable and tunable deep beamformer using adaptive instance normalization for medical ultrasound,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 266–278, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Beamforming with deep learning from single plane wave RF data,

    Z. Li, A. Wiacek, and M. A. L. Bell, “Beamforming with deep learning from single plane wave RF data,” in 2020 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium (IUS) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–4

    2020

  5. [13]

    A conditional adversarial network for single plane wave beamforming,

    Y . Wang, K. Kempski, J. U. Kang, and M. A. L. Bell, “A conditional adversarial network for single plane wave beamforming,” in 2020 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium (IUS) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–4

    2020

  6. [14]

    High resolution plane wave compounding through deep proximal learning,

    N. Chennakeshava, B. Luijten, O. Drori, M. Mischi, Y . C. Eldar, and R. J. van Sloun, “High resolution plane wave compounding through deep proximal learning,” in 2020 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium (IUS). IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–4

    2020

  7. [15]

    Single plane-wave imaging using physics-based deep learning,

    G. Pilikos, C. L. de Korte, T. van Leeuwen, and F. Lucka, “Single plane-wave imaging using physics-based deep learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.03661, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Plane-wave image recon- struction via generative adversarial network and attention mechanism,

    J. Tang, B. Zou, C. Li, S. Feng, and H. Peng, “Plane-wave image recon- struction via generative adversarial network and attention mechanism,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Training deep network ultrasound beamformers with unlabeled in vivo data,

    J. Tierney, A. Luchies, C. Khan, J. Baker, D. Brown, B. Byram, and M. Berger, “Training deep network ultrasound beamformers with unlabeled in vivo data,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 158–171, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    End-to-end learning-based ultrasound reconstruction,

    W. Simson, R. G ¨obl, M. Paschali, M. Kr¨onke, K. Scheidhauer, W. Weber, and N. Navab, “End-to-end learning-based ultrasound reconstruction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.04696 , 2019

    1904 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Improving image quality for single-angle plane wave ultrasound imaging with convolutional neural network beamformer,

    J.-Y . Lu, P.-Y . Lee, and C.-C. Huang, “Improving image quality for single-angle plane wave ultrasound imaging with convolutional neural network beamformer,”IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 1326–1336, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Phase aberration robust beamformer for planewave US Using self-supervised learning,

    S. Khan, J. Huh, and J. C. Ye, “Phase aberration robust beamformer for planewave US Using self-supervised learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.08262, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Towards fast region adaptive ultrasound beamformer for plane wave imaging using convolutional neural networks,

    R. P. Mathews and M. R. Panicker, “Towards fast region adaptive ultrasound beamformer for plane wave imaging using convolutional neural networks,” in 2021 43rd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 2910–2913

    2021

  14. [22]

    Deep learning for accelerated ultrasound imaging,

    Y . H. Yoon and J. C. Ye, “Deep learning for accelerated ultrasound imaging,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 6673–6676

    2018

  15. [23]

    Deep neural networks for ultrasound beamforming,

    A. C. Luchies and B. C. Byram, “Deep neural networks for ultrasound beamforming,” IEEE transactions on medical imaging , vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 2010–2021, 2018

    2010

  16. [24]

    Deep unfolded recovery of sub- Nyquist sampled ultrasound images,

    A. Mamistvalov and Y . C. Eldar, “Deep unfolded recovery of sub- Nyquist sampled ultrasound images,” IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, vol. 68, no. 12, pp. 3484–3496, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Deep-learning based adaptive ultrasound imaging from sub-Nyquist channel data,

    A. Mamistvalov, A. Amar, N. Kessler, and Y . C. Eldar, “Deep-learning based adaptive ultrasound imaging from sub-Nyquist channel data,” IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Con- trol, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Deep learning to obtain simultaneous image and segmen- tation outputs from a single input of raw ultrasound channel data,

    A. A. Nair, K. N. Washington, T. D. Tran, A. Reiter, and M. A. Lediju Bell, “Deep learning to obtain simultaneous image and segmen- tation outputs from a single input of raw ultrasound channel data,” IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control, vol. 67, no. 12, pp. 2493–2509,...

    2020

  19. [27]

    Generalization of a deep learning network for beamforming and seg- mentation of ultrasound images,

    S. Seoni, G. Matrone, N. Casali, E. Spairani, and K. M. Meiburger, “Generalization of a deep learning network for beamforming and seg- mentation of ultrasound images,” in 2021 IEEE International Ultrason- ics Symposium (IUS) , 2021, pp. 1–4

    2021

  20. [28]

    A unified deep network for beamforming and speckle reduction in plane wave imaging: A simulation study,

    E. Mor and A. Bar-Hillel, “A unified deep network for beamforming and speckle reduction in plane wave imaging: A simulation study,” Ultrasonics, vol. 103, p. 106069, Jan. 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    Reverbera- tion noise suppression in ultrasound channel signals using a 3d fully convolutional neural network,

    L. L. Brickson, D. Hyun, M. Jakovljevic, and J. J. Dahl, “Reverbera- tion noise suppression in ultrasound channel signals using a 3d fully convolutional neural network,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 1184–1195, 2021. 11

    2021

  22. [30]

    Deep unfolded robust pca with application to clutter suppression in ultrasound,

    O. Solomon, R. Cohen, Y . Zhang, Y . Yang, Q. He, J. Luo, R. J. G. van Sloun, and Y . C. Eldar, “Deep unfolded robust pca with application to clutter suppression in ultrasound,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 1051–1063, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    End-to-end learning-based ultrasound reconstruction,

    W. Simson, R. G ¨obl, M. Paschali, M. Kr¨onke, K. Scheidhauer, W. Weber, and N. Navab, “End-to-end learning-based ultrasound reconstruction,” 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity,

    Z. Wang, A. C. Bovik, H. R. Sheikh, and E. P. Simoncelli, “Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 600–612, 2004

    2004

  25. [33]

    Speckle simulation based on b-mode echographic image acquisition model,

    C. Perreault and M.-F. Auclair-Fortier, “Speckle simulation based on b-mode echographic image acquisition model,” in Fourth Canadian Conference on Computer and Robot Vision (CRV ’07) , 2007, pp. 379– 386

    2007

  26. [34]

    Specaugment: A simple data augmentation method for automatic speech recognition,

    D. S. Park, W. Chan, Y . Zhang, C.-C. Chiu, B. Zoph, E. D. Cubuk, and Q. V . Le, “Specaugment: A simple data augmentation method for automatic speech recognition,” in Proc. Interspeech 2019 . ISCA, sep 2019. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech. 2019-2680

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.