Difference between revisions of "2017 Winter Project Week/LORDWI"
From NAMIC Wiki
(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Image:FigCancerResult1.png | Image:FigCancerResult1.png | ||
Image:FigHCPResult1.png | Image:FigHCPResult1.png | ||
+ | Image:FigHCPResult2.png | ||
<!-- Use the "Upload file" link on the left and then add a line to this list like "File:MyAlgorithmScreenshot.png" --> | <!-- Use the "Upload file" link on the left and then add a line to this list like "File:MyAlgorithmScreenshot.png" --> | ||
</gallery> | </gallery> | ||
Line 22: | Line 23: | ||
| | | | ||
<!-- Objective bullet points --> | <!-- Objective bullet points --> | ||
− | * Evaluate/validate | + | * '''Objective''': Evaluate/validate a density-based non-rigid registration framework for DWI (see the link below for a paper on similarity measure used). <br>''In short: Is this a good registration?'' |
+ | * '''Short description''': The model is based on Free-Form Deformation B-splines where the diffusion gradient directions are updated using the normalized Jacobian. B-spline interpolation is used spatially, the Watson Distribution is used (gradient) directionally. Histogram is smoothed. Similarity is NMI and optimisation is L-BFGS. | ||
| | | | ||
<!-- Approach and Plan bullet points --> | <!-- Approach and Plan bullet points --> | ||
− | + | * Discuss best ways to validate results (tractography, biomarkers, synthetic data, phantoms, others?). So far we have visually tested inter-subject registrations of HCP data, intra-subject multi-shell, and intra-subject on child brain tumor subjects. | |
− | * Discuss best ways to validate results (tractography, biomarkers, synthetic data, phantoms, others?). So far we have visually tested inter-subject registrations of HCP data | + | * Figure out anyone is in need of DWI registration for testing, have a dataset already registered (for comparison), or can help with anatomical landmarks. |
* Consider if Slicer can be used in tandem for evaluation. | * Consider if Slicer can be used in tandem for evaluation. | ||
− | |||
| | | | ||
<!-- Progress and Next steps bullet points (fill out at the end of project week) --> | <!-- Progress and Next steps bullet points (fill out at the end of project week) --> | ||
− | * | + | The goal was too lofty but the week was excellent. |
+ | * Had a lot of great discussions and good insight into what others are doing. | ||
+ | * Got working on acquiring data from different sources (more problems are always welcome!) | ||
+ | * Shared some experiences. | ||
+ | * Got a nice introduction to Slicer. | ||
+ | |||
|} | |} | ||
Latest revision as of 15:45, 13 January 2017
Home < 2017 Winter Project Week < LORDWIKey Investigators
- Henrik Groenholt Jensen, UCPH
- Lauren J. O'Donnell, BWH
- Tina Kapur, BWH
- Fan Zhang, BWH
- Carl-Fredrik Westin, BWH
Project Description
Objective | Approach and Plan | Progress and Next Steps |
---|---|---|
|
|
The goal was too lofty but the week was excellent.
|
Background and References
- MICCAI paper on early framework: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-24571-3_37