Cited by 113Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesMedical Imaging and AnalysisAdvanced Neural Network Applications

Dilated FCN for Multi-Agent 2D/3D Medical Image Registration

Open access
Miao, Shun, Piat, Sebastien, Fischer, Peter, Tuysuzoglu, Ahmet, Mewes, Philip, Mansi, Tommaso, Liao, Rui·2018·Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

2D/3D image registration to align a 3D volume and 2D X-ray images is a challenging problem due to its ill-posed nature and various artifacts presented in 2D X-ray images. In this paper, we propose a multi-agent system with an auto attention mechanism for robust and efficient 2D/3D image registration. Specifically, an individual agent is trained with dilated Fully Convolutional Network (FCN) to perform registration in a Markov Decision Process (MDP) by observing a local region, and the final action is then taken based on the proposals from multiple agents and weighted by their corresponding confidence levels. The contributions of this paper are threefold. First, we formulate 2D/3D registration as a MDP with observations, actions, and rewards properly defined with respect to X-ray imaging systems. Second, to handle various artifacts in 2D X-ray images, multiple local agents are employed efficiently via FCN-based structures, and an auto attention mechanism is proposed to favor the proposals from regions with more reliable visual cues. Third, a dilated FCN-based training mechanism is proposed to significantly reduce the Degree of Freedom in the simulation of registration environment, and drastically improve training efficiency by an order of magnitude compared to standard CNN-based training method. We demonstrate that the proposed method achieves high robustness on both spine cone beam Computed Tomography data with a low signal-to-noise ratio and data from minimally invasive spine surgery where severe image artifacts and occlusions are presented due to metal screws and guide wires, outperforming other state-of-the-art methods (single agent-based and optimization-based) by a large margin.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1609/aaai.v32i1.11576

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Among seven studies that trained deep CNNs on synthetic data and evaluated comparably on synthetic and real data, substantial performance drops were found.

    “Indeed, among the seven studies that trained deep CNNs on synthetic data and evaluated in a way that allowed for comparisons between synthetic and real data performance, we found quite substantial performance drops (Miao et al., 2018; Bier et al., 2019; Gao et al., 2020c; Doerr et al., 2020; Gu et al., 2020; Guan et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020).”

    From The Impact of Machine Learning on 2D/3D Registration for Image-Guided Interventions: A Systematic Review and Perspective (2021) · cites this paper as Miao et al., 2018

    The Training section says the model used both CBCT-derived X-ray/DRR pairs and additional synthetic pairs. The Testing section and Table 2 report worse results on clinical data than on CBCT data, including a substantial rise in gross failure rate for the single-agent method. But the CBCT evaluation used real X-ray images, not synthetic test data, so this paper does not establish a synthetic-versus-real performance drop as phrased. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 30 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Jaderberg, M.; Simonyan, K.; Zisserman, A.; et al. 2015. Spatial transformer networks. In Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, 2017-2025.
  2. Kruger, J., and Westermann, R. 2003. Acceleration tech- niques for gpu-based volume rendering. In Proceedings of the 14th IEEE Visualization 2003 (VIS'03), 38. IEEE Com- puter Society.
  3. Van Laarhoven, P. J., and Aarts, E. H. 1987. Simulated an- nealing. In Simulated annealing: Theory and applications. Springer. 7-15.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Miao, S., Piat, S., Fischer, P., Tuysuzoglu, A., Mewes, P., Mansi, T., & Liao, R.
Affiliations
Siemens Healthcare (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
Published
2018-04-26
Volume
32
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 2159-5399 (ISSN-L)
  • 2374-3468
OpenAlex
W2962759210
Cited by
113
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2
FWCI
4.37
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Medical Imaging and Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
Keywords
2D-3D registration, multi-agent reinforcement learning, Markov decision process, X-ray images, cone-beam computed tomography, spinal surgery, metal artifact reduction, occlusion handling, minimally invasive spine surgery, low signal-to-noise ratio

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