Evaluation of Intensity-Based 2D-3D Spine Image Registration Using Clinical Gold-Standard Data
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Comparative studies suggest that local metrics tend to demonstrate better performance than global metrics.
“Although the best performing similarity metric is application-dependent, comparative studies (Birkfellner et al 2009, Russakoff et al 2003) suggest that local metrics tend to demonstrate better performance.”
From Robust 3D–2D image registration: application to spine interventions and vertebral labeling in the presence of anatomical deformation (2013) · cites this paper as Russakoff et al 2003
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 14 · Cited by 43
- Authors
- Russakoff, D. B., Rohlfing, T., Ho, A., Kim, D. H., Shahidi, R., Adler, J. R., & Maurer, C. R.
- Affiliations
- Stanford Medicine (US)
- Corresponding author
- Russakoff, Daniel B.
- Venue
- Lecture Notes in Computer Science
- Publisher
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
- Published
- 2003
- Pages
- 151-160
- ISSN
- 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
- 1611-3349
- OpenAlex
- W1527240959
- Cited by
- 43
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 3.69
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Medical Imaging and Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Radiation › Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
- Keywords
- 2D-3D registration, spinal imaging, intensity-based registration, image similarity measures, mutual information, cross correlation function, gradient correlation, target registration error, bone implants
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
