Assessment of a commercially available automatic deformable registration system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, a number of approaches have been applied to the problem of deformable registration validation. However, the challenge of assessing a commercial deformable registration system - in particular, an automatic registration system in which the deformable transformation is not readily accessible - has not been addressed. Using a collection of novel and established methods, we have developed a comprehensive, four-component protocol for the validation of automatic deformable image registration systems over a range of IGRT applications. The protocol, which was applied to the Reveal-MVS system, initially consists of a phantom study for determination of the system's general tendencies, while relative comparison of different registration settings is achieved through postregistration similarity measure evaluation. Synthetic transformations and contour-based metrics are used for absolute verification of the system's intra-modality and inter-modality capabilities, respectively. Results suggest that the commercial system is more apt to account for global deformations than local variations when performing deform-able image registration. Although the protocol was used to assess the capabilities of the Reveal-MVS system, it can readily be applied to other commercial systems. The protocol is by no means static or definitive, and can be further expanded to investigate other potential deformable registration applications.
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 | 0.022 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
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".