The DOI matches its Crossref record.
New variants of a method of MRI scale standardization
Abstract
One of the major drawbacks of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been the lack of a standard and quantifiable interpretation of image intensities. Unlike in other modalities, such as X-ray computerized tomography, MR images taken for the same patient on the same scanner at different times may appear different from each other due to a variety of scanner-dependent variations and, therefore, the absolute intensity values do not have a fixed meaning. We have devised a two-step method wherein all images (independent of patients and the specific brand of the MR scanner used) can be transformed in such a way that for the same protocol and body region, in the transformed images similar intensities will have similar tissue meaning. Standardized images can be displayed with fixed windows without the need of per-case adjustment. More importantly, extraction of quantitative information about healthy organs or about abnormalities can be considerably simplified. This paper introduces and compares new variants of this standardizing method that can help to overcome some of the problems with the original method.
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
Cited by
The multimodal brain tumor image segmentation benchmark (BRATS)
Menze, B. H., Jakab, A., Bauer, S., Kalpathy-Cramer, J., Farahani, K., Kirby, J., Burren, Y., Porz, N., Slotboom, J., Wiest, R., et al. (2015) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2014.2377694 · Cited by 6,781
Bakas, S., Akbari, H., Sotiras, A., Bilello, M., Rozycki, M., Kirby, J. S., Freymann, J. B., Farahani, K., & Davatzikos, C. (2017) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/sdata.2017.117 · Cited by 3,049
Brain Tumor Segmentation Using Convolutional Neural Networks in MRI Images
Pereira, S., Pinto, A., Alves, V., & Silva, C. A. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2016.2538465 · Cited by 2,735
Harmonization of cortical thickness measurements across scanners and sites
Fortin, J.-P., Cullen, N., Sheline, Y. I., Taylor, W. D., Aselcioglu, I., Cook, P. A., Adams, P., Cooper, C., Fava, M., McGrath, P. J., et al. (2018) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.11.024 · Cited by 1,580
Evaluation of prostate segmentation algorithms for mri: The promise12 challenge
Litjens, G., Toth, R., van de Ven, W., Hoeks, C., Kerkstra, S., van Ginneken, B., Vincent, G., Guillard, G., Birbeck, N., Zhang, J., et al. (2014) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2013.12.002 · Cited by 857
Metadata
- Authors
- Nyul, L. G., Udupa, J. K., & Zhang, X.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
- Published
- 2000
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 143-150
- ISSN
- 0278-0062 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2154158661
- Cited by
- 956
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.36
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: New variants of a method of MRI scale standardization. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/42.836373
- The paper
- Nyul, L. G., Udupa, J. K., & Zhang, X. (2000). New variants of a method of MRI scale standardization. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1109/42.836373
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.
