Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,707

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Automated Image Registration: I. General Methods and Intrasubject, Intramodality Validation

Woods, Roger P., Grafton, Scott T., Holmes, Colin J., Cherry, Simon R., Mazziotta, John C.·1998·Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography

Abstract

PURPOSE: We sought to describe and validate an automated image registration method (AIR 3.0) based on matching of voxel intensities. METHOD: Different cost functions, different minimization methods, and various sampling, smoothing, and editing strategies were compared. Internal consistency measures were used to place limits on registration accuracy for MRI data, and absolute accuracy was measured using a brain phantom for PET data. RESULTS: All strategies were consistent with subvoxel accuracy for intrasubject, intramodality registration. Estimated accuracy of registration of structural MRI images was in the 75 to 150 microns range. Sparse data sampling strategies reduced registration times to minutes with only modest loss of accuracy. CONCLUSION: The registration algorithm described is a robust and flexible tool that can be used to address a variety of image registration problems. Registration strategies can be tailored to meet different needs by optimizing tradeoffs between speed and accuracy.

Overview

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 · 10.1097/00004728-199801000-00027

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Woods, R. P., Grafton, S. T., Holmes, C. J., Cherry, S. R., & Mazziotta, J. C.
Venue
Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography
Published
1998-01
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
139-152
ISSN
0363-8715 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2104612543
Cited by
1,707
References
0
FWCI
108.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.