A Statistical Model for Point-Based Target Registration Error With Anisotropic Fiducial Localizer Error
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Error models associated with point-based medical image registration problems were first introduced in the late 1990s. The concepts of fiducial localizer error, fiducial registration error, and target registration error are commonly used in the literature. The model for estimating the target registration error at a position r in a coordinate frame defined by a set of fiducial markers rigidly fixed relative to one another is ubiquitous in the medical imaging literature. The model has also been extended to simulate the target registration error at the point of interest in optically tracked tools. However, the model is limited to describing the error in situations where the fiducial localizer error is assumed to have an isotropic normal distribution in R3. In this work, the model is generalized to include a fiducial localizer error that has an anisotropic normal distribution. Similar to the previous models, the root mean square statistic rms tre is provided along with an extension that provides the covariance Sigma tre. The new model is verified using a Monte Carlo simulation and a set of statistical hypothesis tests. Finally, the differences between the two assumptions, isotropic and anisotropic, are discussed within the context of their use in 1) optical tool tracking simulation and 2) image registration.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".