Locally-adaptive similarity metric for deformable medical image registration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More and more researchers are beginning to use multiple dissimilarity metrics or image features for medical image registration. In most of these approaches, however, weights for ranking the relative importance between the selected metrics are empirically tuned and fixed for the entire image domain. Different parts of a medical image, however, may contain significantly different appearance properties such that a metric may only be applicable in certain image regions but less so in other regions. In this paper, we propose to adapt this weighting to generate a locally-adaptive set of dissimilarity metrics such that the overall metric set encourages proper spatial alignment. Using contextual information or via a learning procedure, our approach generates a vector weight map that determines, at each spatial location, the relative importance of each constituent of the overall metric. Our approach was evaluated on 2 datasets of 15 computed tomography (CT) lung images and 40 brain magnetic resonance images (MRI). Experiments show that our approach of using a locally-adaptive set of dissimilarity metrics gives superior results when compared against its non-region specific variant.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".