1. Holmes, J. H. & Howry, D. H. Ultrasonic diagnosis of abdominal disease. Am. J. Dig. Dis.8, 12–32 (1963).

   Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

2. Howry, D. H. & Bliss, W. R. Ultrasonic visualization of soft tissue structures of the body. J. Lab. Clin. Med. 40, 579–592 (1952).

   CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

3. Goldberg, B. B., Gramiak, R. & Freimanis, A. K. Early history of diagnostic ultrasound: the role of American radiologists. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 160, 189–194 (1993).

   Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

4. Holm, H. H. & Mortensen, T. Ultrasonic scanning in diagnosis of abdominal disease. Acta Chir. Scand. 134, 333–341 (1968).

   CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

5. Howry, D. H., Holmes, J. H., Cushman, C. R. & Posakony, G. J. Ultrasonic visualization of living organs and tissues; with observations on some disease processes. Geriatrics 10, 123–128 (1955).

   CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

6. Holm, H. H. Ultrasonic scanning in the diagnosis of space-occupying lesions of the upper abdomen. Br. J. Radiol. 44, 24–36 (1971).

   Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

7. Donald, I., Macvicar, J. & Brown, T. G. Investigation of abdominal masses by pulsed ultrasound. Lancet 1, 1188–1195 (1958).

   Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

8. Pinto, J., Azevedo, R., Pereira, E. & Caldeira, A. Ultrasonography in gastroenterology: the need for training. GE Port. J. Gastroenterol. 25, 308–316 (2018).

   Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

9. Noorkoiv, M., Nosaka, K. & Blazevich, A. J. Assessment of quadriceps muscle cross-sectional area by ultrasound extended-field-of-view imaging. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 109, 631–639 (2010).

   Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

10. Weng, L. et al. US extended-field-of-view imaging technology. Radiology 203, 877–880 (1997).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

11. Sauerbrei, E. E. Extended field-of-view sonography: utility in clinical practice. J. Ultrasound Med. 18, 335–341 (1999).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

12. Kim, S. H., Choi, B. I., Kim, K. W., Lee, K. H. & Han, J. K. Extended field-of-view sonography. J. Ultrasound Med. 22, 385–394 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

13. Wiskin, J., Borup, D. T., Johnson, S. A. & Berggren, M. Non-linear inverse scattering: high resolution quantitative breast tissue tomography. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 131, 3802–3813 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

14. Huang, L. et al. Breast ultrasound tomography with two parallel transducer arrays. In Medical Imaging 2016: Physics of Medical Imaging (Kontos, D. et al.) 98–109 (SPIE, 2016).

15. Zhang, Y. & Wang, L. Video-rate ring-array ultrasound and photoacoustic tomography. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 39, 4369–4375 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

16. Duric, N. et al. Clinical breast imaging with ultrasound tomography: a description of the SoftVue system. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 135, 2155 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

17. Wiskin, J. et al. Full wave 3D inverse scattering transmission ultrasound tomography: breast and whole body imaging. In 2019 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium (IUS) 951–958 (IEEE, 2019).

18. Wiskin, J. et al. Whole-body imaging using low frequency transmission ultrasound. Acad. Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2023.01.018 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

19. Park, E.-Y. et al. Fast volumetric ultrasound facilitates high-resolution 3D mapping of tissue compartments. Sci. Adv. 9, eadg8176 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

20. Kirillov, A. et al. Segment anything. In Proc. IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision 4015–4026 (IEEE, 2023).

21. Szabo, T. L. Diagnostic Ultrasound Imaging: Inside Out (Academic Press, 2004).

22. Tissue Properties Database V4.2. IT’IS Foundation https://doi.org/10.13099/VIP21000-04-2 (2024).

23. Ballestri, S., Romagnoli, D., Nascimbeni, F., Francica, G. & Lonardo, A. Role of ultrasound in the diagnosis and treatment of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and its complications. Expert Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 9, 603–627 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

24. Lee, M.-J., Wu, Y. & Fried, S. K. Adipose tissue heterogeneity: implication of depot differences in adipose tissue for obesity complications. Mol. Aspects Med. 34, 1–11 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

25. Kuczmarski, R. J., Fanelli, M. T. & Koch, G. G. Ultrasonic assessment of body composition in obese adults: overcoming the limitations of the skinfold caliper. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 45, 717–724 (1987).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

26. Liu, K. H. et al. Sonographic measurement of mesenteric fat thickness is a good correlate with cardiovascular risk factors: comparison with subcutaneous and preperitoneal fat thickness, magnetic resonance imaging and anthropometric indexes. Int.J.Obes. 27, 10 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

27. Anvery, N. et al. Utility of high-resolution ultrasound in measuring subcutaneous fat thickness. Lasers Surg. Med. 54, 1189–1197 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

28. Hoffmann, J. et al. Measurement of subcutaneous fat tissue: reliability and comparison of caliper and ultrasound via systematic body mapping. Sci. Rep. 12, 1 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

29. Harley, O. J. H. & Pickford, M. A. CT analysis of fat distribution superficial and deep to the Scarpa’s fascial layer in the mid and lower abdomen. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 66, 525–530 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

30. Abu-Hijleh, M. F., Roshier, A. L., Al-Shboul, Q., Dharap, A. S. & Harris, P. F. The membranous layer of superficial fascia: evidence for its widespread distribution in the body. Surg. Radiol. Anat. 28, 606–619 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

31. Lancerotto, L. et al. Layers of the abdominal wall: anatomical investigation of subcutaneous tissue and superficial fascia. Surg. Radiol. Anat. 33, 835–842 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

32. Graf, R. et al. Ultrasound-assisted liposuction: an analysis of 348 cases. Aesthetic Plast.Surg. 27, 146–153 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

33. Sainani, N. I. et al. The challenging image-guided abdominal mass biopsy: established and emerging techniques ‘if you can see it, you can biopsy it’. Abdom. Imaging 38, 672–696 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

34. Culp, W. C. et al. Relative ultrasonographic echogenicity of standard, dimpled, and polymeric-coated needles. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 11, 351–358 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

35. Li, W., Wang, Y., Nteziyaremye, V., Yamaguchi, H. & Shih, A. J. Measurement of the friction force inside the needle in biopsy. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 138, 031003 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

36. Fulton, N., Buethe, J., Gollamudi, J. & Robbin, M. Simulation-based training may improve resident skill in ultrasound-guided biopsy. Am. J. Roentgenol. 207, 1329–1333 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

37. Guberina, N. et al. Radiation exposure during CT-guided biopsies: recent CT machines provide markedly lower doses. Eur. Radiol. 28, 3929–3935 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

38. Allocca, M., Kucharzik, T. & Rubin, D. T. Intestinal ultrasound in the assessment and management of inflammatory bowel disease: is it ready for standard practice? Gastroenterology 164, 851–855 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

39. Barat, M. et al. CT and MRI of abdominal cancers: current trends and perspectives in the era of radiomics and artificial intelligence. Jpn. J. Radiol. 42, 246–260 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

40. Rubino F. et al. Definition and diagnostic criteria of clinical obesity. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(24)00316-4 (2025).

41. Siepel, F. J. et al. Needle and biopsy robots: a review. Curr. Robot. Rep. 2, 73–84 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

42. Pfister, R. C., Papanicolaou, N. & Yoder, I. C. Urinary extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: equipment, techniques, and overview. Urol. Radiol. 10, 39–45 (1988).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

43. Paverd, C., Martin, A., Rominger, M. & Ruby, L. Assessment of ultrasound image quality in a reference phantom using gel and liquid standoff pads. WFUMB Ultrasound Open 2, 100051 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

44. Wang, C. et al. Bioadhesive ultrasound for long-term continuous imaging of diverse organs. Science 377, 517–523 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

45. Shepherd, J. A., Ng, B. K., Sommer, M. J. & Heymsfield, S. B. Body composition by DXA. Bone 104, 101–105 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

46. Cueto, C. et al. Stride: a flexible software platform for high-performance ultrasound computed tomography. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 221, 106855 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

47. Li, L. et al. Single-impulse panoramic photoacoustic computed tomography of small-animal whole-body dynamics at high spatiotemporal resolution. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 1, 0071 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

48. Lin, L. et al. Single-breath-hold photoacoustic computed tomography of the breast. Nat. Commun. 9, 2352 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

49. Sastry, K. et al. A method for the geometric calibration of ultrasound transducer arrays with arbitrary geometries. Photoacoustics 32, 100520 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

50. O’Donnell, M. Coded excitation system for improving the penetration of real-time phased-array imaging systems. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 39, 341–351 (1992).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

51. Barnett, S. B. et al. International recommendations and guidelines for the safe use of diagnostic ultrasound in medicine. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 26, 355–366 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

52. Duck, F. A. The meaning of thermal index (TI) and mechanical index (MI) values. BMUS Bull. 5, 36–40 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

53. Garrett, D. et al. Human abdominal ultrasound tomography example dataset. figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.31043818.v2 (2026).

Download references