Back

VESTA: Machine Learning-Enabled Estimation of ViscoElastic Ratios from On-Axis Spatio-Temporal ARFI Features

Trisha, S. M.; Rahman, M. A.; Hassan, M. W.; Gi, Y. J.; Lee, J.; Hossain, M. M.

2026-07-07 bioengineering
10.64898/2026.07.06.736692 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Viscoelastic characterization of tissue has significant diagnostic value in oncology, as tumor progression alters both elasticity and viscosity in ways that neither property alone can fully capture. Existing acoustic radiation force (ARF)-based methods such as Viscoelastic Response (VisR) ultrasound estimate relative elasticity and viscosity through per-A-line nonlinear model fitting, which is computationally intensive and requires auxiliary simulations to correct elasticity-dependent bias. This work presents VESTA (Machine Learning-Enabled Estimation of ViscoElastic Ratios from On-Axis Spatio-Temporal ARFI Features), a two-stage data-driven pipeline that predicts elasticity ratio (ER) and viscosity ratio (VR) directly from seven normalized ARFI displacement features at the A-line level, without model fitting or compensation. Stage~1 is an MLP classifier that detects inclusion boundaries from normalized peak displacement and negative peak velocity ratios; Stage~2 is a dilated Conv1D regression model that estimates ER and VR along the full axial sequence using the predicted mask alongside displacement features. The pipeline was trained on 500 simulated inclusion scenarios spanning three geometries, five focal depths, two F-numbers, and a broad range of material contrasts. In silico, mean predicted ER and VR were within 12\% of ground truth across all geometries, with performance best when ER and VR were moderate or decoupled. Experimental validation on a chicken breast phantom demonstrated plausible generalization to real tissue heterogeneity. Applied to an in vivo murine 4T1 breast cancer model, the pipeline tracked treatment-related attenuation of mechanical contrast in paclitaxel-treated tumors relative to controls over a 36-day imaging period, supporting its relevance for tumor monitoring.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
26.4%
2
Photoacoustics
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
15.0%
3
IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering
40 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.6%
50% of probability mass above
4
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 21%
4.8%
5
Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
85 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.0%
6
Biomedical Optics Express
95 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.1%
7
Physics in Medicine & Biology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.6%
8
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
37 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.1%
9
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
10
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 43%
1.9%
11
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 48%
1.7%
12
Journal of Biomedical Optics
28 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
13
Journal of Neural Engineering
221 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
14
Advanced Science
286 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.4%
15
IEEE Access
35 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
16
Computers in Biology and Medicine
128 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
17
Imaging Neuroscience
282 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
18
npj Precision Oncology
53 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
19
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 30%
0.8%
20
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 20%
0.8%
21
Optics Letters
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.6%
22
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 35%
0.6%
23
npj Imaging
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%
24
Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%