Normalized entropy measure for multimodality image alignment:
Abstract
Automated multi-modality 3D medical image alignment has been an active area of research for many years. There have been a number of recent papers proposing and investigating the use of entropy derived measures of brain image alignment. Any registration measure must allow us to choose between transformation estimates based on the similarity of images within their volume of overlap. Since 3D medical images often have a limited extent and overlap, the similarity measure for the two transformation estimates may be derived from two very different regions within the images. Direct measures of information such as the joint entropy and mutual information will therefore be a function of, not only image similarity in the region of overlap, but also of the local image content within the overlap. In this paper we present a new measure, normalized mutual information, which is simply the ratio of the sum of the marginal entropies and the joint entropy. The effect of changing overlap on current entropy measures and this normalized measure are compared using a simple image model and experiments on clinical MR-PET and MR-CT image data. Results indicate that the normalized entropy measure provides significantly improved behavior over a range of imaged fields of view.
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?
PET and CT images were co-registered using a mutual information-based normalized entropy algorithm and mapped to stereotactic mouse brain coordinates.
“Post-acquisition, all PET and CT images were co-registered using a mutual information-based normalized entropy algorithm (Studholme et al., 1998) with 12 degrees of freedom and mapped to stereotactic mouse brain coordinates (Franklin and Paxinos, 2013).”
From Plcg2M28L Interacts With High Fat/High Sugar Diet to Accelerate Alzheimer’s Disease-Relevant Phenotypes in Mice (2022) · cites this paper as Studholme et al., 1998
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 1 · Cited by 91
- Authors
- Studholme, C., Hawkes, D. J., & Hill, D. L.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- Guy's Hospital (GB)
- Venue
- SPIE Proceedings
- Publisher
- SPIE
- Published
- 1998-06-24
- Volume
- 3338
- Pages
- 132-143
- ISSN
- 0277-786X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2029679244
- Cited by
- 91
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 1.76
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Vanderbilt University
- National Institutes of Health
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Radiation › Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
- Keywords
- normalized mutual information, entropy measures, multimodal image registration, joint entropy, marginal entropy, CT-MRI registration, brain image registration
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