ArticleIEEE transactions on medical imaging2021
Strain Energy Decay Predicts Elastic Registration Accuracy From Intraoperative Data Constraints.
Article in IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current trends in three-dimensional visualization and real-time navigation as well as robot-assisted technologies in hepatobiliary surgery.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Image-guided intervention for soft tissue organs depends on the accuracy of deformable registration methods to achieve effective results. While registration techniques based on elastic theory are prevalent, no methods yet exist that can prospectively estimate registration uncertainty to regulate sources and mitigate consequences of localization error in deforming organs. This paper introduces registration uncertainty metrics based on dispersion of strain energy from boundary constraints to predict the proportion of target registration error (TRE) remaining after nonrigid elastic registration. These uncertainty metrics depend on the spatial distribution of intraoperative constraints provided to registration with relation to patient-specific organ geometry. Predictive linear and bivariate gamma models are fit and cross-validated using an existing dataset of 6291 simulated registration examples, plus 699 novel simulated registrations withheld for independent validation. Average uncertainty and average proportion of TRE remaining after elastic registration are strongly correlated ( r = 0.78 ), with mean absolute difference in predicted TRE equivalent to 0.9 ± 0.6 mm (cross-validation) and 0.9 ± 0.5 mm (independent validation). Spatial uncertainty maps also permit localized TRE estimates accurate to an equivalent of 3.0 ± 3.1 mm (cross-validation) and 1.6 ± 1.2 mm (independent validation). Additional clinical evaluation of vascular features yields localized TRE estimates accurate to 3.4 ± 3.2 mm. This work formalizes a lower bound for the inherent uncertainty of nonrigid elastic registrations given coverage of intraoperative data constraints, and demonstrates a relation to TRE that can be predictively leveraged to inform data collection and provide a measure of registration confidence for elastic methods.
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.