MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023392183 · doi:10.1118/1.3223631

Demons deformable registration for CBCT‐guided procedures in the head and neck: Convergence and accuracy

2009· article· en· W2023392183 on OpenAlexaff
S. Nithiananthan, Kristy K. Brock, Michael J. Daly, Harley Chan, Jonathan C. Irish, Jeffrey H. Siewerdsen

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsImage registrationComputer scienceRobustness (evolution)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionCadaverCone beam computed tomographyConvergence (economics)Medical imagingAlgorithmMedicineComputed tomographyImage (mathematics)RadiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The accuracy and convergence behavior of a variant of the Demons deformable registration algorithm were investigated for use in cone-beam CT (CBCT)-guided procedures of the head and neck. Online use of deformable registration for guidance of therapeutic procedures such as image-guided surgery or radiation therapy places trade-offs on accuracy and computational expense. This work describes a convergence criterion for Demons registration developed to balance these demands; the accuracy of a multiscale Demons implementation using this convergence criterion is quantified in CBCT images of the head and neck. METHODS: Using an open-source "symmetric" Demons registration algorithm, a convergence criterion based on the change in the deformation field between iterations was developed to advance among multiple levels of a multiscale image pyramid in a manner that optimized accuracy and computation time. The convergence criterion was optimized in cadaver studies involving CBCT images acquired using a surgical C-arm prototype modified for 3D intraoperative imaging. CBCT-to-CBCT registration was performed and accuracy was quantified in terms of the normalized cross-correlation (NCC) and target registration error (TRE). The accuracy and robustness of the algorithm were then tested in clinical CBCT images of ten patients undergoing radiation therapy of the head and neck. RESULTS: The cadaver model allowed optimization of the convergence factor and initial measurements of registration accuracy: Demons registration exhibited TRE=(0.8+/-0.3) mm and NCC =0.99 in the cadaveric head compared to TRE=(2.6+/-1.0) mm and NCC=0.93 with rigid registration. Similarly for the patient data, Demons registration gave mean TRE=(1.6+/-0.9) mm compared to rigid registration TRE=(3.6+/-1.9) mm, suggesting registration accuracy at or near the voxel size of the patient images (1 x 1 x 2 mm3). The multiscale implementation based on optimal convergence criteria completed registration in 52 s for the cadaveric head and in an average time of 270 s for the larger FOV patient images. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate selection of convergence and multiscale parameters in Demons registration was shown to reduce computational expense without sacrificing registration performance. For intraoperative CBCT imaging with deformable registration, the ability to perform accurate registration within the stringent time requirements of the operating environment could offer a useful clinical tool allowing integration of preoperative information while accurately reflecting changes in the patient anatomy. Similarly for CBCT-guided radiation therapy, fast accurate deformable registration could further augment high-precision treatment strategies.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.307 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations94
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207