MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083745515 · doi:10.1117/12.770331

2D/3D registration with the CMA-ES method

2008· article· en· W2083745515 on OpenAlexaff
Ren Hui Gong, Purang Abolmaesumi

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMedical Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceKalman filterComputer visionMaxima and minimaTransformation (genetics)SimplexComputationImage registrationImaging phantomAlgorithmImage (mathematics)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose a new method for 2D/3D registration and report its experimental results. The method employs the Covariance Matrix Adaptation Evolution Strategy (CMA-ES) algorithm to search for an optimal transformation that aligns the 2D and 3D data. The similarity calculation is based on Digitally Reconstructed Radiographs (DRRs), which are dynamically generated from the 3D data using a hardware-accelerated technique - Adaptive Slice Geometry Texture Mapping (ASGTM). Three bone phantoms of different sizes and shapes were used to test our method: a long femur, a large pelvis, and a small scaphoid. A collection of experiments were performed to register CT to fluoroscope and DRRs of these phantoms using the proposed method and two prior work, i.e. our previously proposed Unscented Kalman Filter (UKF) based method and a commonly used simplex-based method. The experimental results showed that: 1) with slightly more computation overhead, the proposed method was significantly more robust to local minima than the simplex-based method; 2) while as robust as the UKF-based method in terms of capture range, the new method was not sensitive to the initial values of its exposed control parameters, and has also no special requirement about the cost function; 3) the proposed method was fast and consistently achieved the best accuracies in all compared methods.

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)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicMedical Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207