ANHIR: Automatic Non-Rigid Histological Image Registration Challenge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automatic Non-rigid Histological Image Registration (ANHIR) challenge was organized to compare the performance of image registration algorithms on several kinds of microscopy histology images in a fair and independent manner. We have assembled 8 datasets, containing 355 images with 18 different stains, resulting in 481 image pairs to be registered. Registration accuracy was evaluated using manually placed landmarks. In total, 256 teams registered for the challenge, 10 submitted the results, and 6 participated in the workshop. Here, we present the results of 7 well-performing methods from the challenge together with 6 well-known existing methods. The best methods used coarse but robust initial alignment, followed by non-rigid registration, used multiresolution, and were carefully tuned for the data at hand. They outperformed off-the-shelf methods, mostly by being more robust. The best methods could successfully register over 98% of all landmarks and their mean landmark registration accuracy (TRE) was 0.44% of the image diagonal. The challenge remains open to submissions and all images are available for download.
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 | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.009 |
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".