The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluation of Registration Methods on Thoracic CT: The EMPIRE10 Challenge
Open accessAbstract
EMPIRE10 (Evaluation of Methods for Pulmonary Image REgistration 2010) is a public platform for fair and meaningful comparison of registration algorithms which are applied to a database of intrapatient thoracic CT image pairs. Evaluation of nonrigid registration techniques is a nontrivial task. This is compounded by the fact that researchers typically test only on their own data, which varies widely. For this reason, reliable assessment and comparison of different registration algorithms has been virtually impossible in the past. In this work we present the results of the launch phase of EMPIRE10, which comprised the comprehensive evaluation and comparison of 20 individual algorithms from leading academic and industrial research groups. All algorithms are applied to the same set of 30 thoracic CT pairs. Algorithm settings and parameters are chosen by researchers expert in the configuration of their own method and the evaluation is independent, using the same criteria for all participants. All results are published on the EMPIRE10 website (http://empire10.isi.uu.nl). The challenge remains ongoing and open to new participants. Full results from 24 algorithms have been published at the time of writing. This paper details the organization of the challenge, the data and evaluation methods and the outcome of the initial launch with 20 algorithms. The gain in knowledge and future work 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
Elastix: a toolbox for intensity-based medical image registration
Klein, S., Staring, M., Murphy, K., Viergever, M. A., & Pluim, J. (2010) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2009.2035616 · Cited by 4,311
Self-citationEvaluation of 14 nonlinear deformation algorithms applied to human brain MRI registration
Klein, A., Andersson, J., Ardekani, B. A., Ashburner, J., Avants, B., Chiang, M.-C., Christensen, G. E., Collins, D. L., Gee, J., Hellier, P., et al. (2009) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.12.037 · Cited by 2,227
Self-citationImplementation and evaluation of various demons deformable image registration algorithms on a GPU
Gu, X., Pan, H., Liang, Y., Castillo, R., Yang, D., Choi, D., Castillo, E., Majumdar, A., Guerrero, T., & Jiang, S. B. (2010) · Physics in Medicine and Biology · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/55/1/012 · Cited by 243
Cited by
Deformable medical image registration: a survey
Sotiras, A., Davatzikos, C., & Paragios, N. (2013) · IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · doi:10.1109/tmi.2013.2265603 · Cited by 1,587
“The development of dedicated methods for reference standard construction [454] and the organization of registration 2 http://www.mindboggle.info/papers/evaluation NeuroImage2009/data/ challenges [455] create the necessary conditions for objective comparison of registration methods.”
MethodEvaluation 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
The Insight ToolKit image registration framework
Avants, B. B., Tustison, N. J., Stauffer, M., Song, G., Wu, B., & Gee, J. C. (2014) · Frontiers in Neuroinformatics · doi:10.3389/fninf.2014.00044 · Cited by 658
Self-citationRoth, H. R., Lu, L., Lay, N., Harrison, A. P., Farag, A., Sohn, A., & Summers, R. M. (2018) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2018.01.006 · Cited by 325
Murakami, T. C., Mano, T., Saikawa, S., Horiguchi, S. A., Shigeta, D., Baba, K., Sekiya, H., Shimizu, Y., Tanaka, K. F., Kiyonari, H., et al. (2018) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-018-0109-1 · Cited by 292
Metadata
- Authors
- Murphy, K., van Ginneken, B., Reinhardt, J. M., Kabus, S., Ding, K., Deng, X., Cao, K., Du, K., Christensen, G. E., Garcia, V., Vercauteren, T., Ayache, N., Commowick, O., Malandain, G., Glocker, B., Paragios, N., Navab, N., Gorbunova, V., Sporring, J., de Bruijne, M., Han, X., Heinrich, M. P., Schnabel, J. A., Jenkinson, M., Lorenz, C., Modat, M., McClelland, J. R., Ourselin, S., Muenzing, S. E. A., Viergever, M. A., De Nigris, D., Collins, D. L., Arbel, T., Peroni, M., Li, R., Sharp, G. C., Schmidt-Richberg, A., Ehrhardt, J., Werner, R., Smeets, D., Loeckx, D., Song, G., Tustison, N., Avants, B., Gee, J. C., Staring, M., Klein, S., Stoel, B. C., Urschler, M., Werlberger, M., Vandemeulebroucke, J., Rit, S., Sarrut, D., & Pluim, J. P. W.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
- Published
- 2011-11
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1901-1920
- ISSN
- 0278-0062 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-254X
- OpenAlex
- W2126393454
- Cited by
- 440
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 41.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Evaluation of Registration Methods on Thoracic CT: The EMPIRE10 Challenge. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tmi.2011.2158349
- The paper
- Murphy, K., van Ginneken, B., Reinhardt, J. M., Kabus, S., Ding, K., Deng, X., Cao, K., Du, K., Christensen, G. E., Garcia, V., Vercauteren, T., Ayache, N., Commowick, O., Malandain, G., Glocker, B., Paragios, N., Navab, N., Gorbunova, V., Sporring, J., . . . Pluim, J. P. W. (2011). Evaluation of Registration Methods on Thoracic CT: The EMPIRE10 Challenge. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1109/tmi.2011.2158349
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.
