Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31446127›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2019

Deformable MRI-Ultrasound registration using correlation-based attribute matching for brain shift correction: Accuracy and generality in multi-site data.

Inês Machado, Matthew Toews, Elizabeth George, Prashin Unadkat, Walid Essayed, Jie Luo, Pedro Teodoro, Herculano Carvalho, Jorge Martins, Polina Golland and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. DDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. [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 · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Intraoperative Imaging for High-Grade Glioma Surgery.Neurosurgery clinics of North America · 2021
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

15 authors.

Inês MachadoDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Mechanical Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal. Electronic address: ines.prata.machado@tecnico.ulisboa.pt.
Matthew ToewsDepartment of Systems Engineering, École de Technologie Supérieure, Montreal, Canada.
Elizabeth GeorgeDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Prashin UnadkatDepartment of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Walid EssayedDepartment of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Jie LuoGraduate School of Frontier Sciences, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Pedro TeodoroEscola Superior Náutica Infante D. Henrique, Lisbon, Portugal.
Herculano CarvalhoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Hospital de Santa Maria, CHLN, Lisbon, Portugal.
Jorge MartinsDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
Polina GollandComputer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Steve PieperDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Isomics, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA.
Sarah FriskenDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Alexandra GolbyDepartment of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
William Wells IiiDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Yangming OuDepartment of Pediatrics and Radiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: yangming.ou@childrens.harvard.edu.

Funding

Training and DisseminationP41EB015902 · NIBIB · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI PUJOL, SONIA · 2012 to 2022
$20.9M
Image Guided Therapy Center - Ultrasound-based sensor system for the monitoring of COVID-19 patientsP41EB015898 · NIBIB · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI TEMPANY, CLARE M · 2012 to 2021
$18.9M
Multimodal Registration of the Brain's Cortical SurfaceR01NS049251 · NINDS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI GOLBY, ALEXANDRA J, MIGA, MICHAEL IAN · 2005 to 2018
$6.7M
NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB015898NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB015902NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS049251
6 · The paper itself

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

AlgorithmsBrain MappingBrain NeoplasmsHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedImaging, Three-DimensionalMagnetic Resonance ImagingSurgery, Computer-AssistedUltrasonographyBrain shiftBrain TumorIntraoperative ultrasoundMR-iUS registrationMulti-site dataSurgical Guidance

Identifiers

PMID31446127
PMCPMC6819249

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.