The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A minimum description length approach to statistical shape modeling
Abstract
We describe a method for automatically building statistical shape models from a training set of example boundaries/surfaces. These models show considerable promise as a basis for segmenting and interpreting images. One of the drawbacks of the approach is, however, the need to establish a set of dense correspondences between all members of a set of training shapes. Often this is achieved by locating a set of "landmarks" manually on each training image, which is time consuming and subjective in two dimensions and almost impossible in three dimensions. We describe how shape models can be built automatically by posing the correspondence problem as one of finding the parameterization for each shape in the training set. We select the set of parameterizations that build the "best" model. We define "best" as that which minimizes the description length of the training set, arguing that this leads to models with good compactness, specificity and generalization ability. We show how a set of shape parameterizations can be represented and manipulated in order to build a minimum description length model. Results are given for several different training sets of two-dimensional boundaries, showing that the proposed method constructs better models than other approaches including manual landmarking-the current gold standard. We also show that the method can be extended straightforwardly to three dimensions.
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
A Mathematical Theory of Communication
Shannon, C. E. (1948) · Bell System Technical Journal · doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x · Cited by 88,486
An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms
Mitchell, M. (1996) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/3927.001.0001 · Cited by 11,340
Cited by
Yushkevich, P. A., Piven, J., Hazlett, H. C., Smith, R. G., Ho, S., Gee, J. C., & Gerig, G. (2006) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.01.015 · Cited by 8,868
Medical image segmentation on GPUs – A comprehensive review
Smistad, E., Falch, T. L., Bozorgi, M., Elster, A. C., & Lindseth, F. (2015) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2014.10.012 · Cited by 264
Computing Accurate Correspondences across Groups of Images
Cootes, T. F., Twining, C. J., Petrovic, V. S., Babalola, K. O., & Taylor, C. J. (2010) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2009.193 · Cited by 70
Self-citation3D reconstruction of medical images from slices automatically landmarked with growing neural models
Angelopoulou, A., Psarrou, A., Garcia-Rodriguez, J., Orts-Escolano, S., Azorin-Lopez, J., & Revett, K. (2015) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2014.03.078 · Cited by 31
3D Point Correspondence by Minimum Description Length in Feature Space
Chen, J.-H., Zheng, K. C., & Shapiro, L. G. (2010) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15558-1_45 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Davies, R. H., Twining, C. J., Cootes, T. F., Waterton, J. C., & Taylor, C. J.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
- Published
- 2002-05
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 525-537
- ISSN
- 0278-0062 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2099530880
- Cited by
- 572
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 46.43
- 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: A minimum description length approach to statistical shape modeling. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tmi.2002.1009388
- The paper
- Davies, R. H., Twining, C. J., Cootes, T. F., Waterton, J. C., & Taylor, C. J. (2002). A minimum description length approach to statistical shape modeling. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1109/tmi.2002.1009388
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.