Literature DB >> 18293565

A simple fixed-point approach to invert a deformation field.

Mingli Chen1, Weiguo Lu, Quan Chen, Kenneth J Ruchala, Gustavo H Olivera.   

Abstract

Inversion of deformation fields is applied frequently to map images, dose, and contours between the reference frame and the study frame. A prevailing approach that takes the negative of the forward deformation as the inverse deformation is oversimplified and can cause large errors for large deformations or deformations that are composites of several deformations. Other approaches, including Newton's method and scatter data interpolation, either require the first derivative or are very inefficient. Here we propose an iterative approach that is easy to implement, converges quickly to the inverse when it does, and works for a majority of cases in practice. Our approach is rooted in fixed-point theory. We build a sequence to approximate the inverse deformation through iterative evaluation of the forward deformation. A sufficient but not necessary convergence condition (Lipschitz condition) and its proof are also given. Though this condition guarantees the convergence, it may not be met for an arbitrary deformation field. One should always check whether the inverse exists for the given forward deformation field by calculating its Jacobian. If nonpositive values of the Jacobian occur only for few voxels, this method will usually converge to a pseudoinverse. In case the iteration fails to converge, one should switch to other means of finding the inverse. We tested the proposed method on simulated 2D data and real 3D computed tomography data of a lung patient and compared our method with two implementations in the Insight Segmentation and Registration Toolkit (ITK). Typically less than ten iterations are needed for our method to get an inverse deformation field with clinically relevant accuracy. Based on the test results, our method is about ten times faster and yet ten times more accurate than ITK's iterative method for the same number of iterations. Simulations and real data tests demonstrated the efficacy and the accuracy of the proposed algorithm.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18293565     DOI: 10.1118/1.2816107

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  32 in total

1.  A pseudoinverse deformation vector field generator and its applications.

Authors:  C Yan; H Zhong; M Murphy; E Weiss; J V Siebers
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Biomechanical modeling of radiation dose-induced volumetric changes of the parotid glands for deformable image registration.

Authors:  Molly M McCulloch; Guillaume Cazoulat; Alexandra C Ford; Baher Elgohari; Houda Bahig; Andrew D Kim; Hesham Elhalawani; Renjie He; Jihong Wang; Yao Ding; Abdallah Sr Mohamed; Daniel F Polan; Jason B King; Christine B Peterson; Andrea N Ohrt; Clifton D Fuller; Stephen Y Lai; Kristy K Brock
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2020-08-31       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  Motion estimation for cardiac functional analysis using two x-ray computed tomography scans.

Authors:  George S K Fung; Luisa Ciuffo; Hiroshi Ashikaga; Katsuyuki Taguchi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  A mass-conserving 4D XCAT phantom for dose calculation and accumulation.

Authors:  Christopher L Williams; Pankaj Mishra; Joao Seco; Sara St James; Raymond H Mak; Ross I Berbeco; John H Lewis
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Local motion-compensated method for high-quality 3D coronary artery reconstruction.

Authors:  Bo Liu; Xiangzhi Bai; Fugen Zhou
Journal:  Biomed Opt Express       Date:  2016-11-23       Impact factor: 3.732

6.  Variability in muscle activation of simple speech motions: A biomechanical modeling approach.

Authors:  Negar M Harandi; Jonghye Woo; Maureen Stone; Rafeef Abugharbieh; Sidney Fels
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Evaluation of advanced Lukas-Kanade optical flow on thoracic 4D-CT.

Authors:  Christoph Bernhard Hoog Antink; Tarunraj Singh; Puneet Singla; Matthew Podgorsak
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2013-04-03       Impact factor: 2.502

8.  A resting state fMRI analysis pipeline for pooling inference across diverse cohorts: an ENIGMA rs-fMRI protocol.

Authors:  Bhim M Adhikari; Neda Jahanshad; Dinesh Shukla; Jessica Turner; Dominik Grotegerd; Udo Dannlowski; Harald Kugel; Jennifer Engelen; Bruno Dietsche; Axel Krug; Tilo Kircher; Els Fieremans; Jelle Veraart; Dmitry S Novikov; Premika S W Boedhoe; Ysbrand D van der Werf; Odile A van den Heuvel; Jonathan Ipser; Anne Uhlmann; Dan J Stein; Erin Dickie; Aristotle N Voineskos; Anil K Malhotra; Fabrizio Pizzagalli; Vince D Calhoun; Lea Waller; Ilja M Veer; Hernik Walter; Robert W Buchanan; David C Glahn; L Elliot Hong; Paul M Thompson; Peter Kochunov
Journal:  Brain Imaging Behav       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 3.978

9.  From label fusion to correspondence fusion: a new approach to unbiased groupwise registration.

Authors:  Paul A Yushkevich; Hongzhi Wang; John Pluta; Brian B Avants
Journal:  Proc IEEE Comput Soc Conf Comput Vis Pattern Recognit       Date:  2012

10.  Iterative inversion of deformation vector fields with feedback control.

Authors:  Abhishek Dubey; Alexandros-Stavros Iliopoulos; Xiaobai Sun; Fang-Fang Yin; Lei Ren
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2018-06-10       Impact factor: 4.071

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.