FEM-based evaluation of deformable image registration for radiation therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a new concept to automatically detect the neighborhood in an image where deformable registration is mis-performing. Specifically, the displacement vector field (DVF) from a deformable image registration is substituted into a finite-element-based elastic framework to calculate unbalanced energy in each element. The value of the derived energy indicates the quality of the DVF in its neighborhood. The new voxel-based evaluation approach is compared with three other validation criteria: landmark measurement, a finite element approach and visual comparison, for deformable registrations performed with the optical-flow-based 'demons' algorithm as well as thin-plate spline interpolation. This analysis was performed on three pairs of prostate CT images. The results of the analysis show that the four criteria give mutually comparable quantitative assessments on the six registration instances. As an objective concept, the unbalanced energy presents no requirement on boundary constraints in its calculation, different from traditional mechanical modeling. This method is automatic, and at voxel level suitable to evaluate deformable registration in a clinical setting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".