PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10875371

Ultrasound field estimation method using a secondary source-array numerically constructed from a limited number of pressure measurements

Abstract

A new and faster method for the accurate estimation of acoustic fields of underwater ultrasonic transducers was developed, tested experimentally, and compared to previously reported methods. Using a limited number of pressure measurements close to the transducer's face, the method numerically constructs a virtual secondary source-array whose acoustic field is similar to the field generated by the actual transducer (primary source). The measured data are used to obtain the normal particle velocity on the surface of the virtual secondary source-array, which in turn permits the calculation of the forward propagating field using the Rayleigh-Sommerfeld diffraction integral. The method is novel in that it constructs a virtual secondary source-array, thus eliminating the problems associated with obtaining the excitation source of a real transducer; and it is faster because it uses finite differences instead of a matrix inversion to obtain the excitation source. Results showed that predicted ultrasound fields agreed quantitatively and qualitatively with measured fields for three commonly used transducer types: two planar radiators (one circular, 0.5 MHz, 1.9-cm diam.; and one square, 1 MHz, 1.2 cm on a side), and a sharply focused radiator (1.5 MHz, 10-cm diam., 10-cm radius of curvature). The agreements suggest that the secondary source-array method (SSAM) is applicable to a wide range of radiator sizes, shapes, and operating frequencies. The SSAM was also compared to these authors' previous equivalent phased array methods (EPAM) [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 102, 2734-2741 (1997); and Concentric ring equivalent phased array method (CREPAM), UFFC 46, 830-841 (1999)] which require matrix inversions. The SSAM proved to be much faster and equally or more nearly accurate than the previous methods.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

X Fan, EG Moros, WL Straube. 2000. Ultrasound field estimation method using a secondary source-array numerically constructed from a limited number of pressure measurements. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.429398

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗