Fully automated initialisation of 2D–3D image registration
Abstract
The manual interaction required by image-based 2D-3D registration systems can be a major limitation for their use in routine clinical practice. A main source of such interaction is the process of providing an initial estimate for the pose of the 3D data. We propose here a fully automated method for computing this estimate, based on the preoperative computation of 2D templates over a wide range of 3D poses which encompass the majority of standard fluoroscopy gantry poses. These templates are used to apply the Generalised Hough Transform to the intraoperative fluoroscopy image. The sought 3D pose estimate is selected using the generated accumulator arrays and a Gradient Difference Similarity Measure. We show how this method can be incorporated into a vertebra-based, CT-to-fluoroscopy registration system, to provide an initial pose estimate and automatically verify the produced results. The proposed method is tested on data from four clinical procedures with low dose, i.e. low quality, high noise fluoroscopy images, producing correct pose estimates for all 65 images taken within the operating range of interest. The estimates for the 9 images outside this range were correctly rejected by the verification criterion. We believe that the robustness, automation and speed (45 sec computation time) achieved by the proposed method is a significant step to wider clinical use of 2D-3D registration technology.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Other metrics not uniquely attributable to a domain include registration capture range and registration success rate.
“Other metrics that are not uniquely attributable to a domain include the registration capture range (Schaffert et al., 2019; Esfandiari et al., 2021) and the registration success rate (Varnavas et al., 2013; Mitrovi et al., 2014; Miao et al., 2016b; Yang and Chen, 2019; Schaffert et al., 2020a).”
From The Impact of Machine Learning on 2D/3D Registration for Image-Guided Interventions: A Systematic Review and Perspective (2021) · cites this paper as Varnavas et al., 2013
Only three studies in the review register multiple objects through learning-based approaches, and these independently registered single objects to obtain relative poses.
“We found that only three studies in our review register multiple objects through learning-based approaches (Varnavas et al., 2013, 2015b; Wang et al., 2020), and moreover, these studies independently registered single objects in order to obtain relative poses.”
From The Impact of Machine Learning on 2D/3D Registration for Image-Guided Interventions: A Systematic Review and Perspective (2021) · cites this paper as Varnavas et al., 2013
The four studies considering registration verification all attempt to provide a low-dimensional classification of registration success, e.g., pass/fail or correct/poor/incorrect.
“The four studies which consider registration verification in this review all attempt to provide a low dimensional classification of registration success, e.g., pass/fail or correct/poor/incorrect (Mitrovi et al., 2014; Varnavas et al., 2013, 2015a; Wu et al., 2016).”
From The Impact of Machine Learning on 2D/3D Registration for Image-Guided Interventions: A Systematic Review and Perspective (2021) · cites this paper as Varnavas et al., 2013
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Unberath, M., Gao, C., Hu, Y., Judish, M., Taylor, R. H., Armand, M., & Grupp, R. (2021) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2021.716007 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
- Authors
- Varnavas, A., Carrell, T., & Penney, G.
- Affiliations
- King's College London (GB)
- Venue
- 2013 IEEE 10th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2013-04
- Pages
- 568-571
- OpenAlex
- W2061045318
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 0.43
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI) (publishedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Medical Imaging and Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Radiation › Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
- Keywords
- 2D-3D registration, 3D pose estimation, fluoroscopy, low-dose fluoroscopy, intraoperative image guidance
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