Evaluation of various deformable image registration algorithms for thoracic images
Journal of Radiation Research, ISSN: 1349-9157, Vol: 55, Issue: 1, Page: 175-182
2014
- 80Citations
- 121Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations80
- Citation Indexes79
- 79
- CrossRef39
- Patent Family Citations1
- Patent Families1
- Captures121
- Readers121
- 119
Article Description
We evaluated the accuracy of one commercially available and three publicly available deformable image registration (DIR) algorithms for thoracic four-dimensional (4D) computed tomography (CT) images. Five patients with esophagus cancer were studied. Datasets of the five patients were provided by DIR-lab (dir-lab.com) and consisted of thoracic 4D CT images and a coordinate list of anatomical landmarks that had been manually identified. Expert landmark correspondence was used for evaluating DIR spatial accuracy. First, the manually measured displacement vector field (mDVF) was obtained from the coordinate list of anatomical landmarks. Then the automatically calculated displacement vector field (aDVF) was calculated by using the following four DIR algorithms: B-spine implemented in Velocity AI (Velocity Medical, Atlanta, GA, USA), free-form deformation (FFD), Horn-Schunk optical flow (OF) and Demons in DIRART of MATLAB software. Registration error is defined as the difference between mDVF and aDVF. The mean 3D registration errors were 2.7 ± 0.8 mm for B-spline, 3.6 ± 1.0 mm for FFD, 2.4 ± 0.9 mm for OF and 2.4 ± 1.2 mm for Demons. The results showed that reasonable accuracy was achieved in B-spline, OF and Demons, and that these algorithms have the potential to be used for 4D dose calculation, automatic image segmentation and 4D CT ventilation imaging in patients with thoracic cancer. However, for all algorithms, the accuracy might be improved by using the optimized parameter setting. Furthermore, for B-spline in Velocity AI, the 3D registration error was small with displacements of less than ∼10 mm, indicating that this software may be useful in this range of displacements. © 2013 The Author.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84892711515&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rrt093; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23869025; https://academic.oup.com/jrr/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/jrr/rrt093; https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rrt093; https://academic.oup.com/jrr/article/55/1/175/914951
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know