ReviewCurrent osteoporosis reports2023
Image Registration in Longitudinal Bone Assessment Using Computed Tomography.
Review in Current osteoporosis reports, 2023. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewRigid image registration is an important image processing tool for the assessment of musculoskeletal chronic disease. In this paper, we critically review applications of rigid image registration in terms of similarity measurement methods over the past three years (2019-2022) in the context of monitoring longitudinal changes to bone microstructure and mechanical properties using computed tomography. This review identifies critical assumptions and trade-offs underlying different similarity measurement methods used in image registration and demonstrates the effect of using different similarity measures on registration outcomes. RECENT
findingsImage registration has been used in recent studies for: correcting positional shifts between longitudinal scans to quantify changes to bone microstructural and mechanical properties over time, developing registration-based workflows for longitudinal assessment of bone properties in pre-clinical and clinical studies, and developing and validating registration techniques for longitudinal studies. In evaluating the recent literature, it was found that the assumptions at the root of different similarity measures used in rigid image registration are not always confirmed and reported. Each similarity measurement has its advantages and disadvantages, as well as underlying assumptions. Breaking these assumptions can lead to poor and inaccurate registration results. Thus, care must be taken with regards to the choice of similarity measurement and interpretation of results. We propose that understanding and verifying the assumptions of similarity measurements will enable more accurate and efficient quantitative assessments of structural changes over time.
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.