Cited by 4,731Advanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesBrain Tumor Detection and Classification

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A nonparametric method for automatic correction of intensity nonuniformity in MRI data

Open access
Sled, J.G., Zijdenbos, A.P., Evans, A.C.·1998·IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging

Abstract

A novel approach to correcting for intensity nonuniformity in magnetic resonance (MR) data is described that achieves high performance without requiring a model of the tissue classes present. The method has the advantage that it can be applied at an early stage in an automated data analysis, before a tissue model is available. Described as nonparametric nonuniform intensity normalization (N3), the method is independent of pulse sequence and insensitive to pathological data that might otherwise violate model assumptions. To eliminate the dependence of the field estimate on anatomy, an iterative approach is employed to estimate both the multiplicative bias field and the distribution of the true tissue intensities. The performance of this method is evaluated using both real and simulated MR data.

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 · 10.1109/42.668698

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 51 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. thulborn, 1993, b1 correction maps and apparent water density maps as tools for quantitative functional mri, Soc Magn Reson Med, 1, 347
  2. zijdenbos, 1995, intensity correction and its effect on measurement variability in the computer-aided analysis of mri, Proc 9th Int Symp Exhibit Computer Assisted Radiology (CAR), 216

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 216

Metadata

Authors
Sled, J. G., Zijdenbos, A. P., & Evans, A. C.
Affiliations
Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital (CA)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
Published
1998
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
87-97
ISSN
0278-0062 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2157848968
Cited by
4,731
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 92 · 2025: 148 · 2024: 159 · 2023: 176 · 2022: 187 · 2021: 240 · 2020: 227 · 2019: 257 · 2018: 246 · 2017: 260 · 2016: 251 · 2015: 303 · 2014: 293 · 2013: 298 · 2012: 275
FWCI
36.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Library and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship@McGill (McGill) (submittedVersion)
  • McGill-DEV
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Brain Tumor Detection and Classification
Keywords
magnetic resonance imaging, bias field estimation, iterative estimation, N3
MeSH terms
Brain, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Models, Theoretical

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