PURPOSE: This study investigates methodologies for the estimation of small animal anatomy from non-tomographic modalities, such as planar X-ray projections, optical cameras, and surface scanners. The key goal is to register a digital mouse atlas to a combination of non-tomographic modalities, in order to provide organ-level anatomical references of small animals in 3D. PROCEDURES: A 2D/3D registration method was developed to register the 3D atlas to the combination of non-tomographic imaging modalities. Eleven combinations of three non-tomographic imaging modalities were simulated, and the registration accuracy of each combination was evaluated. RESULTS: Comparing the 11 combinations, the top-view X-ray projection combined with the side-view optical camera yielded the best overall registration accuracy of all organs. The use of a surface scanner improved the registration accuracy of skin, spleen, and kidneys. CONCLUSIONS: The methodologies and evaluation presented in this study should provide helpful information for designing preclinical atlas-based anatomical data acquisition systems.
PURPOSE: This study investigates methodologies for the estimation of small animal anatomy from non-tomographic modalities, such as planar X-ray projections, optical cameras, and surface scanners. The key goal is to register a digital mouse atlas to a combination of non-tomographic modalities, in order to provide organ-level anatomical references of small animals in 3D. PROCEDURES: A 2D/3D registration method was developed to register the 3D atlas to the combination of non-tomographic imaging modalities. Eleven combinations of three non-tomographic imaging modalities were simulated, and the registration accuracy of each combination was evaluated. RESULTS: Comparing the 11 combinations, the top-view X-ray projection combined with the side-view optical camera yielded the best overall registration accuracy of all organs. The use of a surface scanner improved the registration accuracy of skin, spleen, and kidneys. CONCLUSIONS: The methodologies and evaluation presented in this study should provide helpful information for designing preclinical atlas-based anatomical data acquisition systems.
Authors: Said Benameur; Max Mignotte; Stefan Parent; Hubert Labelle; Wafa Skalli; Jacques de Guise Journal: Comput Med Imaging Graph Date: 2003 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: Bastiaan Driehuys; John Nouls; Alexandra Badea; Elizabeth Bucholz; Ketan Ghaghada; Alexandra Petiet; Laurence W Hedlund Journal: ILAR J Date: 2008
Authors: Ralf B Schulz; Angelique Ale; Athanasios Sarantopoulos; Marcus Freyer; Eric Soehngen; Marta Zientkowska; Vasilis Ntziachristos Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2009-11-10 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: M J van der Bom; J P W Pluim; M J Gounis; E B van de Kraats; S M Sprinkhuizen; J Timmer; R Homan; L W Bartels Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2011-01-21 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Hui Zhang; Qinan Bao; Nam T Vu; Robert W Silverman; Richard Taschereau; Brittany N Berry-Pusey; Ali Douraghy; Fernando R Rannou; David B Stout; Arion F Chatziioannou Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Artem Khmelinskii; Martin Baiker; Eric L Kaijzel; Josette Chen; Johan H C Reiber; Boudewijn P F Lelieveldt Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Hongkai Wang; David B Stout; Richard Taschereau; Zheng Gu; Nam T Vu; David L Prout; Arion F Chatziioannou Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2012-09-12 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Z Gu; R Taschereau; N T Vu; H Wang; D L Prout; R W Silverman; B Bai; D B Stout; M E Phelps; A F Chatziioannou Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2013-05-10 Impact factor: 3.609