Difference between revisions of "Event:2011-Registration-Retreat-Tuesday"
From NAMIC Wiki
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
=Tuesday registration topics= | =Tuesday registration topics= | ||
− | * Grand | + | * Grand challenge in registration |
− | ** | + | ** Grand challenge, pick problem that current technology fails on. Will have a greater impact that a normal miccai contest, tweaking current methods. |
− | + | ** Define a general data set, that is complex enough to force new technology. | |
− | + | ** Example data set full body registration, for example mice | |
− | + | ** How do we define good registration, | |
− | + | ** Vanderbilt data set. Blind evaluation and “you cheat you lose” approach. | |
+ | ** Look at taxonomy, see what checks off: if speed is important, if ... | ||
+ | ** Use a clinical outcome for the quality of the result? Use a secondary system, that relies on the registration to make its decision. | ||
+ | ** Subjective clinical decisions often not reliable (example size of ventricles, normal, enlarged, hugely enlarged) | ||
+ | ** Several grand challenges, for example estimate the uncertainty of the registration. | ||
+ | ** What can today’s method to well? Good start to find a grand challenge. | ||
+ | ** Pig, 1000 lead balls. CT the Pig, move, CT again. Do radiation therapy. Shrink tumors. etc. | ||
+ | ** Need a grant to get such a project going. | ||
+ | ** The balls migrate over time, can we use anatomical landmarks. Can we use features in the data for landmarks that also will be used for driving the algorithm? | ||
+ | ** Error bars on positions of landmarks. | ||
+ | ** Find landmarks, easier in bone, vascularture, gyration patterns, more difficult with breast, and in white matter. | ||
+ | ** Using anatomical feature for registration often robust (vasculature, ..). | ||
+ | ** Define validation strategies that most people agree on, but is strongly related to the applications. | ||
+ | ** What is the aspect, robustness, accuracy, speed? Need to be specific in a challenge. | ||
+ | ** Two types of registration, having visual landmarks, or not. If no visible features, still models of stiffness and physical properties can meaningfully predict movement. | ||
+ | ** Point landmarks, Synthetic data, what are the taxonomy for metrics? | ||
+ | ** Other user (metrics?) critera are: is it to slow, is it useful? Amount of user interaction, etc. | ||
+ | ** Marketing, grant challenge should capture imagination, should not be technology oriented. A vision that can capture attention, and funding. | ||
+ | ** Come up with a medically relevant topic. | ||
+ | ** Asking clinicians if this is good enough, get to the relevance. Then ask the practical questions, is this fast enough, robust enough, ... | ||
* What works using current technology | * What works using current technology | ||
* White paper outline | * White paper outline |
Revision as of 16:54, 22 February 2011
Home < Event:2011-Registration-Retreat-TuesdayBack to Registration Brainstorming 2011
Tuesday registration topics
- Grand challenge in registration
- Grand challenge, pick problem that current technology fails on. Will have a greater impact that a normal miccai contest, tweaking current methods.
- Define a general data set, that is complex enough to force new technology.
- Example data set full body registration, for example mice
- How do we define good registration,
- Vanderbilt data set. Blind evaluation and “you cheat you lose” approach.
- Look at taxonomy, see what checks off: if speed is important, if ...
- Use a clinical outcome for the quality of the result? Use a secondary system, that relies on the registration to make its decision.
- Subjective clinical decisions often not reliable (example size of ventricles, normal, enlarged, hugely enlarged)
- Several grand challenges, for example estimate the uncertainty of the registration.
- What can today’s method to well? Good start to find a grand challenge.
- Pig, 1000 lead balls. CT the Pig, move, CT again. Do radiation therapy. Shrink tumors. etc.
- Need a grant to get such a project going.
- The balls migrate over time, can we use anatomical landmarks. Can we use features in the data for landmarks that also will be used for driving the algorithm?
- Error bars on positions of landmarks.
- Find landmarks, easier in bone, vascularture, gyration patterns, more difficult with breast, and in white matter.
- Using anatomical feature for registration often robust (vasculature, ..).
- Define validation strategies that most people agree on, but is strongly related to the applications.
- What is the aspect, robustness, accuracy, speed? Need to be specific in a challenge.
- Two types of registration, having visual landmarks, or not. If no visible features, still models of stiffness and physical properties can meaningfully predict movement.
- Point landmarks, Synthetic data, what are the taxonomy for metrics?
- Other user (metrics?) critera are: is it to slow, is it useful? Amount of user interaction, etc.
- Marketing, grant challenge should capture imagination, should not be technology oriented. A vision that can capture attention, and funding.
- Come up with a medically relevant topic.
- Asking clinicians if this is good enough, get to the relevance. Then ask the practical questions, is this fast enough, robust enough, ...
- What works using current technology
- White paper outline