Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30382457›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2019

Learning deep similarity metric for 3D MR-TRUS image registration.

Grant Haskins, Jochen Kruecker, Uwe Kruger, Sheng Xu, Peter A Pinto, Brad J Wood, Pingkun Yan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Ultrasound Frame-to-Volume Registration via Deep Learning for Interventional Guidance.IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Grant HaskinsDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, 12180, USA.
Jochen KrueckerPhilips Research North America, Cambridge, MA, 02141, USA.
Uwe KrugerDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, 12180, USA.
Sheng XuCenter for Interventional Oncology, Radiology & Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA.
Peter A PintoCenter for Interventional Oncology, Radiology & Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA.
Brad J WoodCenter for Interventional Oncology, Radiology & Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA.
Pingkun YanDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, 12180, USA. yanp2@rpi.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9779-2141

Funding

Center for Interventional OncologyZIDBC011242 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI WOOD, BRADFORD J · 2009 to 2025
$18.7M
Prostate SectionZIABC011081 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI PINTO, PETER · 2009 to 2025
$15.2M
Interventional OncologyZIACL040015 · CLC · CLINICAL CENTER · PI WOOD, BRADFORD · 2009 to 2025
$0k
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA CL040015Intramural NIH HHS ZID BC011242National Institutes of Health (US) 1ZIDBC011242National Institutes of Health (US) 1ZIDCL040015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe fusion of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and magnetic resonance (MR) images for guiding targeted prostate biopsy has significantly improved the biopsy yield of aggressive cancers. A key component of MR-TRUS fusion is image registration. However, it is very challenging to obtain a robust automatic MR-TRUS registration due to the large appearance difference between the two imaging modalities. The work presented in this paper aims to tackle this problem by addressing two challenges: (i) the definition of a suitable similarity metric and (ii) the determination of a suitable optimization strategy.

methodsThis work proposes the use of a deep convolutional neural network to learn a similarity metric for MR-TRUS registration. We also use a composite optimization strategy that explores the solution space in order to search for a suitable initialization for the second-order optimization of the learned metric. Further, a multi-pass approach is used in order to smooth the metric for optimization.

resultsThe learned similarity metric outperforms the classical mutual information and also the state-of-the-art MIND feature-based methods. The results indicate that the overall registration framework has a large capture range. The proposed deep similarity metric-based approach obtained a mean TRE of 3.86 mm (with an initial TRE of 16 mm) for this challenging problem.

conclusionA similarity metric that is learned using a deep neural network can be used to assess the quality of any given image registration and can be used in conjunction with the aforementioned optimization framework to perform automatic registration that is robust to poor initialization.

Indexed as

Deep LearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingBiopsyHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedImaging, Three-DimensionalMaleNeural Networks, ComputerPhantoms, ImagingProstateProstatic NeoplasmsUltrasonographyConvolutional neural networksImage-guided interventionsImage registrationMultimodal image fusionProstate cancer

Identifiers

PMID30382457
PMCPMC7641874

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.