Difference between revisions of "2011 Summer Project Week Breakout Session EMRegistration"
From NAMIC Wiki
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| − | ====Attendees | + | ==== Attendees ==== |
*Kilian Pohl | *Kilian Pohl | ||
*Dominik Meier | *Dominik Meier | ||
*Dominique Belhachemi | *Dominique Belhachemi | ||
| − | * | + | *Greg Sharp |
| + | *Danielle Pace | ||
*Hans Johnson | *Hans Johnson | ||
| − | |||
*Jim Miller | *Jim Miller | ||
| − | |||
*Daniel Haehn | *Daniel Haehn | ||
| Line 39: | Line 38: | ||
**2 track approach, using multiple versions that use different registration methods | **2 track approach, using multiple versions that use different registration methods | ||
**NA-MIC sandbox options: Andryi | **NA-MIC sandbox options: Andryi | ||
| − | ** | + | **[http://www.picsl.upenn.edu/ANTS Nonrigid registration within the ANTS package] |
Latest revision as of 02:22, 23 June 2011
Home < 2011 Summer Project Week Breakout Session EMRegistrationContents
Summer Project Week Breakout Session: Registration for EM Segmenter
Wednesday, June 22, 2011, 3-4pm, Star room.
Synopsis:
The EM segmenter includes as a vital step the co-registration of a multiple subject atlas to obtain spatial priors for small region detection. The success of these priors depends heavily on the quality of the registration obtained. Because the registration includes a large-DOF nonrigid inter-subject registration, benchmarks for a good solution are largely absent. We seek an implementation of a registration using Slicer registration tools that will provide best possible robustness and if possible an estimate of reliability. Because this registration will be integrated into a slicer module, tools with a BSD license are strongly preferred.
Attendees
- Kilian Pohl
- Dominik Meier
- Dominique Belhachemi
- Greg Sharp
- Danielle Pace
- Hans Johnson
- Jim Miller
- Daniel Haehn
Reference Material:
Preliminary Agenda:
- Description of the registration task for the EM segmenter
- Review of example case
- Comparison of BRAINSfit and CMTK strategies
- Discussion of design/implementation options/strategies
Meeting Notes:
- Hans pointed out that an upcoming fix, soon to be in ITK4, will incorporate an improved placement of control points, which reduces the need for masking
- the multiresolution approach and fine & adaptive grid are likely the reason for the good performance of CMTK on inter-subject registration
- CMTK takes ~1hr and does not have a BSD license, bootstrapping of transforms for saving time require transform concatenation
- skull stripped masks are not necessarily avail. for all use cases and should not be expected as avail. input
- emulation of CMTK behavior would require concatenation of multiple nonrigid transforms, which is also forthcoming in ITK4
- Alternatives:
- Plastimatch was not designed for brain MRI, but it does have multiresolution
- 2 track approach, using multiple versions that use different registration methods
- NA-MIC sandbox options: Andryi
- Nonrigid registration within the ANTS package
