MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1551472421 · doi:10.1109/isbi.2015.7164079

Fast and efficient image registration based on gradient orientations of minimal uncertainty

2015· article· en· W1551472421 on OpenAlexaff
Tal Arbel, Dante De Nigris

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImage registrationComputer scienceVoxelArtificial intelligenceMatching (statistics)Context (archaeology)Sampling (signal processing)Computer visionImage (mathematics)Pattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There exist a wide variety of time sensitive contexts (e.g. image-guided neurosurgery (IGNS)), whereby image registration is required to be both fast and accurate if it is to be adopted clinically. Many sampling techniques have been proposed to speed up the registration process but these often come at the expense of accuracy (e.g. random). In this paper, we describe a fast and accurate multi-modal registration framework based on matching gradient orientations at locations of minimal gradient magnitude uncertainties in a coarse-to-fine manner. In the context of IGNS, the method was shown to perform with accuracies below 2mm using 2% of the total voxels when tested on the 14 cases of the publicly available BITE dataset [1]. For rigid registration between MRI and CT brain images on the RIRE dataset [2], the quantitative results demonstrate that the proposed approach can employ highly reduced sampling rates (e.g. 0.05% of the voxels in the image) while still yielding a median registration error inferior to 1mm [3]. In the context of the non-rigid registration of inter-patient MRI brain volumes, the proposed approach is evaluated with a publicly available dataset, and achieves comparable accuracy to the top performing methods but with only one sixth of the processing time [4]. While the results are promising, there are remaining challenges associated with existing sampling techniques, as well as limitations in the existing validation frameworks for registration.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207