ArticleProceedings. IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging2024
QUANTITATIVE METRICS FOR BENCHMARKING MEDICAL IMAGE HARMONIZATION.
Article in Proceedings. IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging, 2024. 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.
- Unpaired volumetric harmonization of brain MRI with conditional latent diffusion.Medical image analysis · 2026Article
- Unpaired Multi-Site Brain MRI Harmonization with Image Style-Guided Latent Diffusion.Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention : MICCAI ... International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Image harmonization is an important preprocessing strategy to address domain shifts arising from data acquired using different machines and scanning protocols in medical imaging. However, benchmarking the effectiveness of harmonization techniques has been a challenge due to the lack of widely available standardized datasets with ground truths. In this context, we propose three metrics- two intensity harmonization metrics and one anatomy preservation metric for medical images during harmonization, where no ground truths are required. Through extensive studies on a dataset with available harmonization ground truth, we demonstrate that our metrics are correlated with established image quality assessment metrics. We show how these novel metrics may be applied to real-world scenarios where no harmonization ground truth exists. Additionally, we provide insights into different interpretations of the metric values, shedding light on their significance in the context of the harmonization process. As a result of our findings, we advocate for the adoption of these quantitative harmonization metrics as a standard for benchmarking the performance of image harmonization techniques.
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.