ArticleMedical image analysis2013
A method of 2D/3D registration of a statistical mouse atlas with a planar X-ray projection and an optical photo.
Article in Medical image analysis, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Embodiment of an artificial limb in mice.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- Robust Automated Mouse Micro-CT Segmentation Using Swin UNEt TRansformers.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Automated quantification of bioluminescence images.Nature communications · 2018Article
- A hybrid registration-based method for whole-body micro-CT mice images.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2016Article
- Multimodal Correlative Preclinical Whole Body Imaging and Segmentation.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- A deformable atlas of the laboratory mouse.Molecular imaging and biology · 2015Article
- Robust 3D-2D image registration: application to spine interventions and vertebral labeling in the presence of anatomical deformation.Physics in medicine and biology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The development of sophisticated and high throughput whole body small animal imaging technologies has created a need for improved image analysis and increased automation. The registration of a digital mouse atlas to individual images is a prerequisite for automated organ segmentation and uptake quantification. This paper presents a fully-automatic method for registering a statistical mouse atlas with individual subjects based on an anterior-posterior X-ray projection and a lateral optical photo of the mouse silhouette. The mouse atlas was trained as a statistical shape model based on 83 organ-segmented micro-CT images. For registration, a hierarchical approach is applied which first registers high contrast organs, and then estimates low contrast organs based on the registered high contrast organs. To register the high contrast organs, a 2D-registration-back-projection strategy is used that deforms the 3D atlas based on the 2D registrations of the atlas projections. For validation, this method was evaluated using 55 subjects of preclinical mouse studies. The results showed that this method can compensate for moderate variations of animal postures and organ anatomy. Two different metrics, the Dice coefficient and the average surface distance, were used to assess the registration accuracy of major organs. The Dice coefficients vary from 0.31 ± 0.16 for the spleen to 0.88 ± 0.03 for the whole body, and the average surface distance varies from 0.54 ± 0.06 mm for the lungs to 0.85 ± 0.10mm for the skin. The method was compared with a direct 3D deformation optimization (without 2D-registration-back-projection) and a single-subject atlas registration (instead of using the statistical atlas). The comparison revealed that the 2D-registration-back-projection strategy significantly improved the registration accuracy, and the use of the statistical mouse atlas led to more plausible organ shapes than the single-subject atlas. This method was also tested with shoulder xenograft tumor-bearing mice, and the results showed that the registration accuracy of most organs was not significantly affected by the presence of shoulder tumors, except for the lungs and the spleen.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.