Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38196401›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2024

The Image-to-Physical Liver Registration Sparse Data Challenge: comparison of state-of-the-art using a common dataset.

Jon S Heiselman, Jarrod A Collins, Morgan J Ringel, T Peter Kingham, William R Jarnagin, Michael I Miga

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Strain alignment: toward assessing mechanical plausibility of predicted displacement fields.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Toward Patient-Specific Partial Point Cloud to Surface Completion for Pre to Intra-operative Registration in Image-Guided Liver Interventions.Medical Image Understanding and Analysis. Medical Image Understanding and Analysis (Conference) · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Welcome to the second issue of theJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

6 authors.

Jon S HeiselmanVanderbilt University, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Nashville, Tennessee, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4414-8846
Jarrod A CollinsVanderbilt University, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Nashville, Tennessee, United States.
Morgan J RingelVanderbilt University, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Nashville, Tennessee, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5317-1685
T Peter KinghamMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery, Hepatopancreatobiliary Unit, New York, New York, United States.
William R JarnaginMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Surgery, Hepatopancreatobiliary Unit, New York, New York, United States.
Michael I MigaVanderbilt University, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Nashville, Tennessee, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0694-9765

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Deformation Corrected Image Guided Laparoscopic Liver SurgeryR01EB027498 · NIBIB · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI JARNAGIN, WILLIAM ROBERT, MIGA, MICHAEL IAN · 2019 to 2022
$2.5M
Training Program for Innovative Engineering Research in Surgery and InterventionT32EB021937 · NIBIB · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI Dario J Englot, Michael Ian Miga · 2016 to 2026
$2.3M
A PET-CT Scanner for Translational ResearchS10OD012297 · OD · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI GORE, JOHN C · 2015 to 2015
$2.0M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB027498NIBIB NIH HHS T32 EB021937NIH HHS S10 OD012297
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Computational methods for image-to-physical registration during surgical guidance frequently rely on sparse point clouds obtained over a limited region of the organ surface. However, soft tissue deformations complicate the ability to accurately infer anatomical alignments from sparse descriptors of the organ surface. The Image-to-Physical Liver Registration Sparse Data Challenge introduced at SPIE Medical Imaging 2019 seeks to characterize the performance of sparse data registration methods on a common dataset to benchmark and identify effective tactics and limitations that will continue to inform the evolution of image-to-physical registration algorithms. Approach: Three rigid and five deformable registration methods were contributed to the challenge. The deformable approaches consisted of two deep learning and three biomechanical boundary condition reconstruction methods. These algorithms were compared on a common dataset of 112 registration scenarios derived from a tissue-mimicking phantom with 159 subsurface validation targets. Target registration errors (TRE) were evaluated under varying conditions of data extent, target location, and measurement noise. Jacobian determinants and strain magnitudes were compared to assess displacement field consistency. Results: Rigid registration algorithms produced significant differences in TRE ranging from Conclusions: The choice of registration algorithm significantly impacts registration accuracy and variability of deformation fields. Among current sparse data driven image-to-physical registration algorithms, biomechanical simulations that incorporate task-specific insight into boundary conditions seem to offer best performance.

Indexed as

accuracychallengeimage guidanceliverregistrationsparse data

Identifiers

PMID38196401
PMCPMC10773576

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.