2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2008.12.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of Four Volume-Based Image Registration Algorithms

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Accuracy of automated fusion between CT and anatomic MR images is given to be submillimeter and subdegree with Syntegra toolbox (Pinnacle software version 8.0 m, Philips Medical Systems, Milpitas, CA) [23]. We found it relevant to check all 16 patients’ data sets to determine if normalization and threshold-based segmentation could wrongly influence the fusion process between CT scans and anatomic-metabolic images.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Accuracy of automated fusion between CT and anatomic MR images is given to be submillimeter and subdegree with Syntegra toolbox (Pinnacle software version 8.0 m, Philips Medical Systems, Milpitas, CA) [23]. We found it relevant to check all 16 patients’ data sets to determine if normalization and threshold-based segmentation could wrongly influence the fusion process between CT scans and anatomic-metabolic images.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are many intensity based similarity measures that have been used for multi-modal image registration including: mutual information (MI) [3]- [6], cross-correlation (CC) and local correlation (LC) [5] and an adaptive combination of MI and gradient coded mutual information (GCMI) known as ACMI [8].…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The registration technique proposed in [5] was used for matching 3D CT to MR brain images. The normalized mutual information (NMI), LC and CC similarity measures were evaluated in a multi-resolution approach to determine the six 3D rigid body transformation parameters for head phantom data.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Quantification of registration accuracy in patient data sets is done by comparing the automatically registered data with manually registered data using anatomical landmarks (Nelles et al, 2004). Alternatively, registration accuracy can be determined by using homogeneous phantoms with reference points inside a head contour (Isambert et al, 2008;Zhang et al, 2009). But after adding up the maximal errors of each image processing step, the resulting theoretical overall error is bigger than that which is clinically acceptable.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%