The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Review of Methods for Correction of Intensity Inhomogeneity in MRI
Abstract
Medical image acquisition devices provide a vast amount of anatomical and functional information, which facilitate and improve diagnosis and patient treatment, especially when supported by modern quantitative image analysis methods. However, modality specific image artifacts, such as the phenomena of intensity inhomogeneity in magnetic resonance images (MRI), are still prominent and can adversely affect quantitative image analysis. In this paper, numerous methods that have been developed to reduce or eliminate intensity inhomogeneities in MRI are reviewed. First, the methods are classified according to the inhomogeneity correction strategy. Next, different qualitative and quantitative evaluation approaches are reviewed. Third, 60 relevant publications are categorized according to several features and analyzed so as to reveal major trends, popularity, evaluation strategies and applications. Finally, key evaluation issues and future development of the inhomogeneity correction field, supported by the results of the analysis, are discussed.
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
Voxel-Based Morphometry—The Methods
Ashburner, J., & Friston, K. J. (2000) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1006/nimg.2000.0582 · Cited by 8,676
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
Cited by
Zwanenburg, A., Vallières, M., Abdalah, M. A., Aerts, H. J. W. L., Andrearczyk, V., Apte, A., Ashrafinia, S., Bakas, S., Beukinga, R. J., Boellaard, R., et al. (2020) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2020191145 · Cited by 4,177
Deep learning for brain MRI segmentation: state of the art and future directions
Akkus, Z., Galimzianova, A., Hoogi, A., Rubin, D. L., & Erickson, B. J. (2017) · Journal of Digital Imaging · doi:10.1007/s10278-017-9983-4 · Cited by 1,129
A survey of MRI-based medical image analysis for brain tumor studies
Bauer, S., Wiest, R., Nolte, L.-P., & Reyes, M. (2013) · Physics in Medicine and Biology · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/58/13/r97 · Cited by 1,036
Wen, J., Thibeau-Sutre, E., Diaz-Melo, M., Samper-González, J., Routier, A., Bottani, S., Dormont, D., Durrleman, S., Burgos, N., & Colliot, O. (2020) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2020.101694 · Cited by 809
Automated medical image segmentation techniques
Sharma, N., & Aggarwal, L. (2010) · Journal of Medical Physics · doi:10.4103/0971-6203.58777 · Cited by 754
Metadata
- Authors
- Vovk, U., Pernus, F., & Likar, B.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
- Published
- 2007-03
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 405-421
- ISSN
- 0278-0062 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2117530999
- Cited by
- 851
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 21.66
- 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
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.
