Cited by 4,547Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications

Multimodality image registration by maximization of mutual information

Open access
Maes, F., Collignon, A., Vandermeulen, D., Marchal, G., Suetens, P.·1997·IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging

Abstract

A new approach to the problem of multimodality medical image registration is proposed, using a basic concept from information theory, mutual information (MI), or relative entropy, as a new matching criterion. The method presented in this paper applies MI to measure the statistical dependence or information redundancy between the image intensities of corresponding voxels in both images, which is assumed to be maximal if the images are geometrically aligned. Maximization of MI is a very general and powerful criterion, because no assumptions are made regarding the nature of this dependence and no limiting constraints are imposed on the image content of the modalities involved. The accuracy of the MI criterion is validated for rigid body registration of computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance (MR), and photon emission tomography (PET) images by comparison with the stereotactic registration solution, while robustness is evaluated with respect to implementation issues, such as interpolation and optimization, and image content, including partial overlap and image degradation. Our results demonstrate that subvoxel accuracy with respect to the stereotactic reference solution can be achieved completely automatically and without any prior segmentation, feature extraction, or other preprocessing steps which makes this method very well suited for clinical applications.

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 · 10.1109/42.563664

Cites

30 of 30 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?

  • A 2D intraoperative X-ray can be registered to a 3D preoperative CT volume by maximizing its similarity to a rendered X-ray with respect to the camera pose.

    “A 2D intraoperative X-ray can be registered to a 3D preoperative CT volume by maximizing its similarity to a rendered X-ray with respect to the camera pose [8, 14, 34].”

    From Intraoperative 2D/3D Image Registration via Differentiable X-Ray Rendering (2024) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) describes registration by optimizing similarity between corresponding voxels, and C. Search (page unavailable) describes maximizing the registration criterion over transformation parameters. But the paper's experiments concern 3D CT, MR, and PET scans; the cited passages do not support registering a 2D intraoperative X-ray to a CT volume using a rendered X-ray and camera pose. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Conventional intensity-based 2D/3D registration approaches suffer from a limited capture range due to local minima in hand-crafted image similarity functions.

    “Conventional intensity-based 2D/3D registration approaches suffer from a limited capture range due to the presence of local minima in hand-crafted image similarity functions.”

    From A Fully Differentiable Framework for 2D/3D Registration and the Projective Spatial Transformers (2024) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says that correlation of sparse image features can be insensitive to misregistration at larger distances, supporting a limited-capture-range concern. A separate passage (‘Two random variables,’ page unavailable) describes local maxima and a smaller attraction basin for a mutual-information criterion after image intensities were spatially shuffled. Neither passage establishes that local minima in hand-crafted similarity functions cause limited capture range specifically in conventional 2D/3D registration. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Hand-crafted similarity metrics are positively correlated with pose differences when perturbations are small, but are generally non-convex and fail to accurately represent pose offsets when perturbations are large.

    “While these metrics are positively correlated with pose differences when the perturbations in {K^v,T^xv,ω^D} are small, they are generally non-convex and fail to accurately represent pose offsets when perturbations are large.”

    From The Impact of Machine Learning on 2D/3D Registration for Image-Guided Interventions: A Systematic Review and Perspective (2021) · cites this paper as Maes et al., 1997

    The Introduction says correlation of sparse features such as edges and ridges can have a peaked optimum near registration but be insensitive to misregistration at larger distances. The paper does not establish that hand-crafted metrics are generally non-convex or that they fail to represent large pose offsets; its Discussion reports recovering misregistrations as large as 10 degrees and 40 mm. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Conventional intensity-based 2D/3D registration methods mostly use hand-crafted similarity metrics between the current estimate and the 2D observation as loss function, with common choices being Normalized Cross Correlation, gradient information, or Mutual Information.

    “Conventional intensity-based methods mostly use hand-crafted similarity metrics between y v and its current best estimate y^v=(P(Kv,Txv)◦DωD)(x)fx1 as loss function. Common choices for the similarity metric are Normalized Cross Correlation (NCC), gradient information (Berger et al., 2016), or Mutual Information (MI) (Maes et al., 1997).”

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: 5

  1. J. Astola, and I. Virtanen, "Entropy correlation coefficient, a measure of statistical dependence for categorized data," Proc. of the Univ. of Vaasa, Discussion Papers, no. 44, Finland, 1982.
  2. J.A. Baddeley, "An error metric for binary images," Proc. IEEE Workshop on Robust Computer Vision, pp. 59-78, Bonn, 1992.
  3. A. Collignon, F. Maes, D. Delaere, D. Vandermeulen, P. Suetens, and G. Marchal, "Automated multimodality medical image reg- istration using information theory," Proc. XIV'th Int'l Conf. In- formation Processing in Medical Imaging, Y. Bizais, C. Barillot, and R. Di Paola, eds., pp. 263-274, Computational Imaging and Vision 3, Kluwer Academic Plublishers, June 1995.
  4. W.H. Press, B.P. Flannery, S.A. Teukolsky, and W.T. Vetterling, Numerical Recipes in C, Second Edition, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1992, chapter 10, pp. 412-419.
  5. C. Studholme, D.L.G. Hill, and D.J. Hawkes, "Multiresolu- tion voxel similarity measures for MR-PET registration," Proc. XIV'th Int'l Conf. Information Processing in Medical Imaging, Y. Bizais, C. Barillot, and R. Di Paola, eds., pp. 287-298, Com- putational Imaging and Vision 3, Kluwer Academic Publishers, June 1995.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maes, F., Collignon, A., Vandermeulen, D., Marchal, G., & Suetens, P.
Affiliations
KU Leuven (BE)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
Published
1997-04
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
187-198
ISSN
0278-0062 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2034432063
Cited by
4,547
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 80 · 2025: 84 · 2024: 93 · 2023: 85 · 2022: 116 · 2021: 130 · 2020: 121 · 2019: 124 · 2018: 171 · 2017: 153 · 2016: 139 · 2015: 183 · 2014: 195 · 2013: 212 · 2012: 209
FWCI
71.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Fonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRS
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
multimodal image registration, mutual information, rigid registration, Kullback-Leibler divergence, partial overlap, image degradation
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Brain, Diagnostic Imaging, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted

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