ArticleQuarterly of applied mathematics2019
ESTIMATING DIFFEOMORPHIC MAPPINGS BETWEEN TEMPLATES AND NOISY DATA: VARIANCE BOUNDS ON THE ESTIMATED CANONICAL VOLUME FORM.
Article in Quarterly of applied mathematics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep Learning Based Cross-Modality Histological Brain Section Registration in Multiple Species Using Synthetic Images.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Solving the where problem and quantifying geometric variation in neuroanatomy using generative diffeomorphic mapping.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Reduced Vestibular Function is Associated With Cortical Surface Shape Changes in the Frontal Cortex.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- Multimodal cross-registration and quantification of metric distortions in marmoset whole brain histology using diffeomorphic mappings.The Journal of comparative neurology · 2021Article
- Longitudinal atrophy in early Braak regions in preclinical Alzheimer's disease.Human brain mapping · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Anatomy is undergoing a renaissance driven by the availability of large digital data sets generated by light microscopy. A central computational task is to map individual data volumes to standardized templates. This is accomplished by regularized estimation of a diffeomorphic transformation between the coordinate systems of the individual data and the template, building the transformation incrementally by integrating a smooth flow field. The canonical volume form of this transformation is used to quantify local growth, atrophy, or cell density. While multiple implementations exist for this estimation, less attention has been paid to the variance of the estimated diffeomorphism for noisy data. Notably, there is an infinite dimensional unobservable space defined by those diffeomorphisms which leave the template invariant. These form the stabilizer subgroup of the diffeomorphic group acting on the template. The corresponding flat directions in the energy landscape are expected to lead to increased estimation variance. Here we show that a least-action principle used to generate geodesics in the space of diffeomor-phisms connecting the subject brain to the template removes the stabilizer. This provides reduced-variance estimates of the volume form. Using simulations we demonstrate that the asymmetric large deformation diffeomorphic mapping methods (LDDMM), which explicitly incorporate the asymmetry between idealized template images and noisy empirical images, provide lower variance estimators than their symmetrized counterparts (cf. ANTs). We derive Cramer-Rao bounds for the variances in the limit of small deformations. Analytical results are shown for the Jacobian in terms of perturbations of the vector fields and divergence of the vector field.
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.