The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Parametric estimate of intensity inhomogeneities applied to MRI
Abstract
This paper presents a new approach to the correction of intensity inhomogeneities in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) that significantly improves intensity-based tissue segmentation. The distortion of the image brightness values by a low-frequency bias field impedes visual inspection and segmentation. The new correction method called parametric bias field correction (PABIC) is based on a simplified model of the imaging process, a parametric model of tissue class statistics, and a polynomial model of the inhomogeneity field. We assume that the image is composed of pixels assigned to a small number of categories with a priori known statistics. Further we assume that the image is corrupted by noise and a low-frequency inhomogeneity field. The estimation of the parametric bias field is formulated as a nonlinear energy minimization problem using an evolution strategy (ES). The resulting bias field is independent of the image region configurations and thus overcomes limitations of methods based on homomorphic filtering. Furthermore, PABIC can correct bias distortions much larger than the image contrast. Input parameters are the intensity statistics of the classes and the degree of the polynomial function. The polynomial approach combines bias correction with histogram adjustment, making it well suited for normalizing the intensity histogram of datasets from serial studies. We present simulations and a quantitative validation with phantom and test images. A large number of MR image data acquired with breast, surface, and head coils, both in two dimensions and three dimensions, have been processed and demonstrate the versatility and robustness of this new bias correction scheme.
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
Huber, P. J. (1981) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471725250 · Cited by 7,066
A nonparametric method for automatic correction of intensity nonuniformity in MRI data
Sled, J. G., Zijdenbos, A. P., & Evans, A. C. (1998) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/42.668698 · Cited by 4,731
Multimodality image registration by maximization of mutual information
Maes, F., Collignon, A., Vandermeulen, D., Marchal, G., & Suetens, P. (1997) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/42.563664 · Cited by 4,547
Cited by
Ashburner, J., & Friston, K. J. (2005) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.02.018 · Cited by 7,507
Marcus, D. S., Wang, T. H., Parker, J., Csernansky, J. G., Morris, J. C., & Buckner, R. L. (2007) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.2007.19.9.1498 · Cited by 2,163
Warfield, S. K., Zou, K. H., & Wells, W. M. (2004) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2004.828354 · Cited by 2,072
MP2RAGE, a self bias-field corrected sequence for improved segmentation and T1-mapping at high field
Marques, J. P., Kober, T., Krueger, G., van der Zwaag, W., Van de Moortele, P.-F., & Gruetter, R. (2010) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.002 · Cited by 1,453
Calderón-Garcidueñas, L., Engle, R., Mora-Tiscareño, A., Styner, M., Gómez-Garza, G., Zhu, H., Jewells, V., Torres-Jardón, R., Romero, L., Monroy-Acosta, M. E., et al. (2011) · Brain and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2011.09.006 · Cited by 323
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Styner, M., Brechbuhler, C., Szckely, G., & Gerig, G.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
- Published
- 2000-03
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 153-165
- ISSN
- 0278-0062 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2090056811
- Cited by
- 527
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 8.33
- 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: Parametric estimate of intensity inhomogeneities applied to MRI. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/42.845174
- The paper
- Styner, M., Brechbuhler, C., Szckely, G., & Gerig, G. (2000). Parametric estimate of intensity inhomogeneities applied to MRI. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1109/42.845174
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.