ArticleScientific reports2025
Optimizing spatial normalization of multisubject inner ear MRI: comparison of different geometry-preserving co-registration approaches.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Contrast Agent Uptake in Endolymphatic Sac and Duct: Inverse Relation to Endolymphatic Hydrops.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spatial normalization of multisubject inner ear imaging data is challenging, due to both substantial intraindividual differences and the small size of the organ compared to other intracranial structures. Automatic whole brain co-registration to standard space can only roughly co-align the peripheral vestibular endorgan, and complemental manual registration is highly time-consuming. Here, we compared the accuracy of four geometry-maintaining co-registration methods (one semi-manual method and three automatic methods). High-resolution structural T2-MRI of 153 inner ears from patients and healthy participants were co-registered to an inner-ear atlas. The semi-manual method used a three-point landmark-based approach (3P), two automatic methods were based on unassisted standard algorithms (Advanced Normalization Tools (ANTs), Elastix (EL)), while the fourth automatic method utilized a volumetrically dilated, atlas-based mask (thick inner ear, TIE) for probabilistic inner ear masking. Registration accuracy was evaluated by neurotologists blinded to the respective registration paradigm, and the resulting median volumes were quantified using colocalization analyses. The mask-aided automatic approach showed the best ratings, followed by the semi-manual three-point landmark-based registration (mean ratings (lower: better) TIE 2.21 ± 1.15; 3P 2.58 ± 0.61; EL 3.42 ± 1.06; ANTs 3.49 ± 1.26). The semi-manual method had the lowest rate of insufficient registrations, followed by TIE (3P: 3.70%; TIE: 8.28%; EL: 22.66%; ANTs: 27.02%). TIE showed the highest colocalization metrics with the atlas. Only TIE and 3P allowed for sufficient semicircular canal visualization in method-wise average volumes. Overall, geometry-preserving spatial normalization of multisubject inner ear imaging data is possible and could allow groupwise examinations of the bony labyrinth or temporal bone morphology in the future.
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.