ArticleNeuroImage2019
Deformable MRI-Ultrasound registration using correlation-based attribute matching for brain shift correction: Accuracy and generality in multi-site data.
Article in NeuroImage, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Review on Registration Techniques for Cardiac Computed Tomography and Ultrasound Images.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Role of Virtual iMRI in Glioblastoma Surgery: Advantages, Limitations, and Correlation with iCT and Brain Shift.Brain sciences · 2024Article
- DDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A hybrid deformable registration method to generate motion-compensated 3D virtual MRI for fusion with interventional real-time 3D ultrasound.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2023Article
- [Multiresolution discrete optimization registration method of ultrasound and magnetic resonance images based on key points].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2023Article
- Photoacoustic-MR Image Registration Based on a Co-Sparse Analysis Model to Compensate for Brain Shift.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Intraoperative Imaging for High-Grade Glioma Surgery.Neurosurgery clinics of North America · 2021Review
- SlicerDMRI: Diffusion MRI and Tractography Research Software for Brain Cancer Surgery Planning and Visualization.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2020Article
- Brain Shift in Neuronavigation of Brain Tumors: An Updated Review of Intra-Operative Ultrasound Applications.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Review
- The Essential Role of Open Data and Software for the Future of Ultrasound-Based Neuronavigation.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Intraoperative tissue deformation, known as brain shift, decreases the benefit of using preoperative images to guide neurosurgery. Non-rigid registration of preoperative magnetic resonance (MR) to intraoperative ultrasound (iUS) has been proposed as a means to compensate for brain shift. We focus on the initial registration from MR to predurotomy iUS. We present a method that builds on previous work to address the need for accuracy and generality of MR-iUS registration algorithms in multi-site clinical data. High-dimensional texture attributes were used instead of image intensities for image registration and the standard difference-based attribute matching was replaced with correlation-based attribute matching. A strategy that deals explicitly with the large field-of-view mismatch between MR and iUS images was proposed. Key parameters were optimized across independent MR-iUS brain tumor datasets acquired at 3 institutions, with a total of 43 tumor patients and 758 reference landmarks for evaluating the accuracy of the proposed algorithm. Despite differences in imaging protocols, patient demographics and landmark distributions, the algorithm is able to reduce landmark errors prior to registration in three data sets (5.37±4.27, 4.18±1.97 and 6.18±3.38 mm, respectively) to a consistently low level (2.28±0.71, 2.08±0.37 and 2.24±0.78 mm, respectively). This algorithm was tested against 15 other algorithms and it is competitive with the state-of-the-art on multiple datasets. We show that the algorithm has one of the lowest errors in all datasets (accuracy), and this is achieved while sticking to a fixed set of parameters for multi-site data (generality). In contrast, other algorithms/tools of similar performance need per-dataset parameter tuning (high accuracy but lower generality), and those that stick to fixed parameters have larger errors or inconsistent performance (generality but not the top accuracy). Landmark errors were further characterized according to brain regions and tumor types, a topic so far missing in the literature.
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.