Nonrigid mammogram registration using mutual information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Of the papers dealing with the task of mammogram registration, the majority deal with the task by matching corresponding control-points derived from anatomical landmark points. One of the caveats encountered when using pure point-matching techniques is their reliance on accurately extracted anatomical features-points. This paper proposes an innovative approach to matching mammograms which combines the use of a similarity-measure and a point-based spatial transformation. Mutual information is a cost-function used to determine the degree of similarity between the two mammograms. An initial rigid registration is performed to remove global differences and bring the mammograms into approximate alignment. The mammograms are then subdivided into smaller regions and each of the corresponding subimages is matched independently using mutual information. The centroids of each of the matched subimages are then used as corresponding control-point pairs in association with the Thin-Plate Spline radial basis function. The resulting spatial transformation generates a nonrigid match of the mammograms. The technique is illustrated by matching mammograms from the MIAS mammogram database. An experimental comparison is made between mutual information incorporating purely rigid behavior, and that incorporating a more nonrigid behavior. The effectiveness of the registration process is evaluated using image differences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".