MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159605714 · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04268-3_70

Asymmetric Image-Template Registration

2009· article· en· W2159605714 on OpenAlexaff
Mert R. Sabuncu, B.T. Thomas Yeo, Koen Van Leemput, Tom Vercauteren, Polina Golland

Bibliographic record

VenueLecture notes in computer science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPairwise comparisonImage registrationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)Computer visionConstraint (computer-aided design)Function (biology)Domain (mathematical analysis)Pattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A natural requirement in pairwise image registration is that the resulting deformation is independent of the order of the images. This constraint is typically achieved via a symmetric cost function and has been shown to reduce the effects of local optima. Consequently, symmetric registration has been successfully applied to pairwise image registration as well as the spatial alignment of individual images with a template. However, recent work has shown that the relationship between an image and a template is fundamentally asymmetric. In this paper, we develop a method that reconciles the practical advantages of symmetric registration with the asymmetric nature of image-template registration by adding a simple correction factor to the symmetric cost function. We instantiate our model within a log-domain diffeomorphic registration framework. Our experiments show exploiting the asymmetry in image-template registration improves alignment in the image coordinates.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.586

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations31
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLecture notes in computer scienceSame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207