We have located links that may give you full text access.
The Image-to-Physical Liver Registration Sparse Data Challenge: comparison of state-of-the-art using a common dataset.
Journal of Medical Imaging 2024 January
PURPOSE: Computational methods for image-to-physical registration during surgical guidance frequently rely on sparse point clouds obtained over a limited region of the organ surface. However, soft tissue deformations complicate the ability to accurately infer anatomical alignments from sparse descriptors of the organ surface. The Image-to-Physical Liver Registration Sparse Data Challenge introduced at SPIE Medical Imaging 2019 seeks to characterize the performance of sparse data registration methods on a common dataset to benchmark and identify effective tactics and limitations that will continue to inform the evolution of image-to-physical registration algorithms.
APPROACH: Three rigid and five deformable registration methods were contributed to the challenge. The deformable approaches consisted of two deep learning and three biomechanical boundary condition reconstruction methods. These algorithms were compared on a common dataset of 112 registration scenarios derived from a tissue-mimicking phantom with 159 subsurface validation targets. Target registration errors (TRE) were evaluated under varying conditions of data extent, target location, and measurement noise. Jacobian determinants and strain magnitudes were compared to assess displacement field consistency.
RESULTS: Rigid registration algorithms produced significant differences in TRE ranging from 3.8±2.4 mm to 7.7±4.5 mm, depending on the choice of technique. Two biomechanical methods yielded TRE of 3.1±1.8 mm and 3.3±1.9 mm, which outperformed optimal rigid registration of targets. These methods demonstrated good performance under varying degrees of surface data coverage and across all anatomical segments of the liver. Deep learning methods exhibited TRE ranging from 4.3±3.3 mm to 7.6±5.3 mm but are likely to improve with continued development. TRE was weakly correlated among methods, with greatest agreement and field consistency observed among the biomechanical approaches.
CONCLUSIONS: The choice of registration algorithm significantly impacts registration accuracy and variability of deformation fields. Among current sparse data driven image-to-physical registration algorithms, biomechanical simulations that incorporate task-specific insight into boundary conditions seem to offer best performance.
APPROACH: Three rigid and five deformable registration methods were contributed to the challenge. The deformable approaches consisted of two deep learning and three biomechanical boundary condition reconstruction methods. These algorithms were compared on a common dataset of 112 registration scenarios derived from a tissue-mimicking phantom with 159 subsurface validation targets. Target registration errors (TRE) were evaluated under varying conditions of data extent, target location, and measurement noise. Jacobian determinants and strain magnitudes were compared to assess displacement field consistency.
RESULTS: Rigid registration algorithms produced significant differences in TRE ranging from 3.8±2.4 mm to 7.7±4.5 mm, depending on the choice of technique. Two biomechanical methods yielded TRE of 3.1±1.8 mm and 3.3±1.9 mm, which outperformed optimal rigid registration of targets. These methods demonstrated good performance under varying degrees of surface data coverage and across all anatomical segments of the liver. Deep learning methods exhibited TRE ranging from 4.3±3.3 mm to 7.6±5.3 mm but are likely to improve with continued development. TRE was weakly correlated among methods, with greatest agreement and field consistency observed among the biomechanical approaches.
CONCLUSIONS: The choice of registration algorithm significantly impacts registration accuracy and variability of deformation fields. Among current sparse data driven image-to-physical registration algorithms, biomechanical simulations that incorporate task-specific insight into boundary conditions seem to offer best performance.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Consensus Statement on Vitamin D Status Assessment and Supplementation: Whys, Whens, and Hows.Endocrine Reviews 2024 April 28
The Tricuspid Valve: A Review of Pathology, Imaging, and Current Treatment Options: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 26
Intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine during the surgery to prevent postoperative delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction undergoing non-cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.European Journal of Medical Research 2024 April 19
Interstitial Lung Disease: A Review.JAMA 2024 April 23
Ventilator Waveforms May Give Clues to Expiratory Muscle Activity.American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2024 April 25
Acute Kidney Injury and Electrolyte Imbalances Caused by Dapagliflozin Short-Term Use.Pharmaceuticals 2024 March 27
Systemic lupus erythematosus.Lancet 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app