The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Automatic three‐dimensional correlation of CT‐CT, CT‐MRI, and CT‐SPECT using chamfer matching
Abstract
Image correlation is often required to utilize the complementary information in CT, MRI, and SPECT. A practical method for automatic image correlation in three‐dimensions (3D) based on chamfer matching is described. The method starts with automatic extraction of contour points in one modality and automatic segmentation of the corresponding feature in the other modality. A distance transform is applied to the segmented volume and a cost function is defined that operates between the contour points and the distance transform. Matching is performed by iteratively optimizing the cost function for 3D translation, rotation, and scaling of the contour points. The complete matching process including segmentation requires no user interaction and takes about 100 s on an HP715/50 workstation. Perturbation tests on clinical data with cost functions based on mean, rms, and maximum distances in combination with two general purpose optimization procedures have been performed. The performance of the methods has been quantified in terms of accuracy, capture range, and reliability. The best results on clinical data are obtained with the cost function based on the mean distance and the simplex optimization method. The accuracy is 0.3 mm for CT‐CT, 1.0 mm for CT‐MRI, and 0.7 mm for CT‐SPECT correlation of the head. The accuracy is usually at subpixel level but is limited by global geometric distortions, e.g., for CT‐MRI correlation. Both for CT‐CT and CT‐MRI correlation the capture range is about 6 cm, which is higher than normal differences in patient setup found on the scanners (less than 4 cm). This means that the correlation procedure seldom fails (better than 98% reliability) and user interaction is unnecessary. For CT‐SPECT matching the capture range is about 3 cm (80% reliability), and must be further improved. The method has already been introduced in clinical practice.
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
Cited by
A survey of medical image registration
Maintz, J. B. A., & Viergever, M. A. (1998) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/s1361-8415(01)80026-8 · Cited by 3,327
Hill, D. L. G., Batchelor, P. G., Holden, M., & Hawkes, D. J. (2001) · Physics in Medicine and Biology · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/46/3/201 · Cited by 2,093
Fraass, B., Doppke, K., Hunt, M., Kutcher, G., Starkschall, G., Stern, R., & Van Dyke, J. (1998) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1118/1.598373 · Cited by 911
Maurer, C. R., Qi, R., & Raghavan, V. (2003) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2003.1177156 · Cited by 911
Brock, K. K., Mutic, S., McNutt, T. R., Li, H., & Kessler, M. L. (2017) · Medical Physics · doi:10.1002/mp.12256 · Cited by 881
Metadata
- Authors
- van Herk, M., & Kooy, H. M.
- Venue
- Medical Physics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1994-07
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1163-1178
- ISSN
- 0094-2405 (ISSN-L)
- 2473-4209
- OpenAlex
- W2151297710
- Cited by
- 246
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 20.43
- 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: Automatic three‐dimensional correlation of CT‐CT, CT‐MRI, and CT‐SPECT using chamfer matching. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1118/1.597344
- The paper
- van Herk, M., & Kooy, H. M. (1994). Automatic three‐dimensional correlation of CT‐CT, CT‐MRI, and CT‐SPECT using chamfer matching. Medical Physics. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.597344
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.