The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Estimating the bias field of MR images
Abstract
We propose a modification of Wells et al. technique for bias field estimation and segmentation of magnetic resonance (MR) images. We show that replacing the class other, which includes all tissue not modeled explicitly by Gaussians with small variance, by a uniform probability density, and amending the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm appropriately, gives significantly better results. We next consider the estimation and filtering of high-frequency information in MR images, comprising noise, intertissue boundaries, and within tissue microstructures. We conclude that post-filtering is preferable to the prefiltering that has been proposed previously. We observe that the performance of any segmentation algorithm, in particular that of Wells et al. (and our refinements of it) is affected substantially by the number and selection of the tissue classes that are modeled explicitly, the corresponding defining parameters and, critically, the spatial distribution of tissues in the image. We present an initial exploration to choose automatically the number of classes and the associated parameters that give the best output. This requires us to define what is meant by "best output" and for this we propose the application of minimum entropy. The methods developed have been implemented and are illustrated throughout on simulated and real data (brain and breast MR).
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
Neural Networks for Pattern Recognition
Bishop, C. M. (1995) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198538493.001.0001 · Cited by 12,287
Cited by
Hill, D. L. G., Batchelor, P. G., Holden, M., & Hawkes, D. J. (2001) · Physics in Medicine and Biology · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/46/3/201 · Cited by 2,093
A review of Methods for Bias Correction in Medical Images
Song, S., Zheng, Y., & He, Y. (2017) · Biomedical Engineering Review · doi:10.18103/bme.v3i1.1550 · Cited by 62
Metadata
- Authors
- Guillemaud, R., & Brady, M.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
- Published
- 1997-06
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 238-251
- ISSN
- 0278-0062 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2022495783
- Cited by
- 329
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 11.16
- 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.