Cited by 62Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications

Bayesian Characterization of Uncertainty in Intra-subject Non-rigid Registration

Open access
Risholm, Petter, Janoos, Firdaus, Norton, Isaiah, Golby, Alex J., Wells, William M.·2013·Medical Image Analysis

Abstract

In settings where high-level inferences are made based on registered image data, the registration uncertainty can contain important information. In this article, we propose a Bayesian non-rigid registration framework where conventional dissimilarity and regularization energies can be included in the likelihood and the prior distribution on deformations respectively through the use of Boltzmann's distribution. The posterior distribution is characterized using Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods with the effect of the Boltzmann temperature hyper-parameters marginalized under broad uninformative hyper-prior distributions. The MCMC chain permits estimation of the most likely deformation as well as the associated uncertainty. On synthetic examples, we demonstrate the ability of the method to identify the maximum a posteriori estimate and the associated posterior uncertainty, and demonstrate that the posterior distribution can be non-Gaussian. Additionally, results from registering clinical data acquired during neurosurgery for resection of brain tumor are provided; we compare the method to single transformation results from a deterministic optimizer and introduce methods that summarize the high-dimensional uncertainty. At the site of resection, the registration uncertainty increases and the marginal distribution on deformations is shown to be multi-modal.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.media.2013.03.002

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Some uncertainty estimation approaches report interval estimates by reformulating the registration objective as a probability distribution and drawing samples, using test-time NN drop-out, or sampling using test-time deformation covariance matrices in a variational autoencoder.

    “Some of these approaches report interval estimates, either by reformulating the registration objective function as a probability distribution and drawing samples (Risholm et al., 2013; Le Folgoc et al., 2016; Schultz et al., 2018), approximating the sampling process using test-time NN drop-out (Yang et al., 2017) or sampling using the test-time deformation covariance matrices embedded within a”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Kybic J 2010 Bootstrap resampling for image registration uncertainty estimation IEEE Trans Image Process 19 64 73 19709978
  2. Risholm P Balter J Wells WM Fichtinger G Martel A Peters T 2011 Estimating delivered dose in radiation therapy: The influence of registration uncertainty Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv Springer 6891 548 555 PMC3265332 22003661

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Risholm, P., Janoos, F., Norton, I., Golby, A. J., & Wells, W. M.
Affiliations
Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Risholm, Petter
Venue
Medical Image Analysis
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-07
Volume
17
Issue
5
Pages
538-555
ISSN
1361-8415 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2082030398
Cited by
62
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6
FWCI
6.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Image Analysis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA138419)
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (P41EB015902, P41EB015898)
  • National Center for Research Resources (P41RR019703, P41RR013218)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Radiation › Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
deformable image registration, registration uncertainty, Boltzmann distribution, Markov chain Monte Carlo, maximum a posteriori estimation, multimodal posterior distributions, uncertainty quantification
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Bayes Theorem, Brain, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Image Enhancement, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Sensitivity and Specificity, Subtraction Technique, Reproducibility of Results, Imaging, Three-Dimensional

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