2008
DOI: 10.1049/el:20081838
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Improved Gauss-Newton optimisation methods in affine registration of SPECT brain images

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
4
1

Relationship

3
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 58 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Images of the brain cross-sections are reconstructed from the projection data using the filtered back-projection (FBP) algorithm in combination with a manually fixed Butterworth noise removal filter, giving rise to 2.18 Â 2.18 Â 3.56 voxels/mm 3 resolution brain images. The preprocessing and spatial normalisation procedure, described in detail in [6], is achieved using affine and nonlinear spatial normalisation [7], and essentially guarantees meaningful voxel-wise comparisons between images. The images were initially labelled by experienced physicians of the 'Virgen de las Nieves' hospital (Granada, Spain), within two classes: NORMAL and AD.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Images of the brain cross-sections are reconstructed from the projection data using the filtered back-projection (FBP) algorithm in combination with a manually fixed Butterworth noise removal filter, giving rise to 2.18 Â 2.18 Â 3.56 voxels/mm 3 resolution brain images. The preprocessing and spatial normalisation procedure, described in detail in [6], is achieved using affine and nonlinear spatial normalisation [7], and essentially guarantees meaningful voxel-wise comparisons between images. The images were initially labelled by experienced physicians of the 'Virgen de las Nieves' hospital (Granada, Spain), within two classes: NORMAL and AD.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, this normalization method is suitable for preprocessing of brain FP-CIT SPECT images for diagnosis purposes (where there are NC and PD images). Previously, the images have been spatially normalized to a common template using a general affine model with 12 parameters (Salas-Gonzalez et al, 2008).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Following the scan, each image was reviewed for possible artifacts at the University of Michigan and all raw and processed study data was archived. Subsequently, the images were normalized through a general affine model, with 12 parameters [27] using the SPM5 software. After the affine normalization, the resulting image was registered using a more complex non-rigid spatial transformation model.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%