Journal of Digital Imaging

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 586–597 | Cite as

Multi-scale Regularization Approaches of Non-parametric Deformable Registrations

  • Hsiang-Chi Kuo
  • Keh-Shih Chuang
  • Dennis Mah
  • Andrew Wu
  • Linda Hong
  • Ravindra Yaparpalvi
  • Shalom Kalnicki
Article

Abstract

Most deformation algorithms use a single-value smoother during optimization. We investigate multi-scale regularizations (smoothers) during the multi-resolution iteration of two non-parametric deformable registrations (demons and diffeomorphic algorithms) and compare them to a conventional single-value smoother. Our results show that as smoothers increase, their convergence rate decreases; however, smaller smoothers also have a large negative value of the Jacobian determinant suggesting that the one-to-one mapping has been lost; i.e., image morphology is not preserved. A better one-to-one mapping of the multi-scale scheme has also been established by the residual vector field measures. In the demons method, the multi-scale smoother calculates faster than the large single-value smoother (Gaussian kernel width larger than 0.5) and is equivalent to the smallest single-value smoother (Gaussian kernel width equals to 0.5 in this study). For the diffeomorphic algorithm, since our multi-scale smoothers were implemented at the deformation field and the update field, calculation times are longer. For the deformed images in this study, the similarity measured by mean square error, normal correlation, and visual comparisons show that the multi-scale implementation has better results than large single-value smoothers, and better or equivalent for smallest single-value smoother. Between the two deformable registrations, diffeormophic method constructs better coherence space of the deformation field while the deformation is large between images.

Key words

Deformation registration multi-scale regularization diffeomorphic algorithm demon algorithm 

References

  1. 1.
    Thirion JP: Image matching as a diffusion process: an analogy with Maxwell’s demons. Med Image Anal 2:243–260, 1998PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bro-Nielsen M, Florack L, Deriche R: Regularization and Scale Space, INRIA Tech. Rep. RR-2352, 1–40, September 1994Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Florack L, Duits R, Bierkens J: Tikhonov regularization versus scale space: a new result [image processing applications]: Image Processing, ICIP International Conference on 2004 V1:271–274, 2004Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bro-Nielsen M, Gramkow C: Fast fluid registration of medical images VBC ’96: Proc. Visualization in Biomedical Computing. Hamburg, Germany, September. Springer Lect Notes Comput Sci 1131:267–276, 1996Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christensen G, Rabbitt R, Miller M: Deformable templates using large deformation kinematics. IEEE Trans Image Process 10:1435–1447, 1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thirion TJ: Non-rigid matching using demons, Proc. Int. Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'96), 245–251, 1996Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vercauteren T, Pennec X, Perchant A, Ayache N: Non-parametric diffeomorphic image registration with the demons algorithm. In: Proc. MICCAI, 319–326, 2007Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cuadra MB: Dense deformation field estimation for atlas-based segmentation of pathological MR brain images. Comput Method Programs Biomed 84:66–75, 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kohlrausch J, Rohr K, Stiehl HS: A new class of elastic body splines for nonrigid registration of medical images. J Math Imaging Vis 23:253–280, 2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Castadot P, Lee J, Parraga A, Geets X, Macq B, Grégoire V: Comparison of 12 deformable registration strategies in adaptive radiation therapy for the treatment of head and neck tumors. Radiol Oncol 88:1–12, 2008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kuo HS, Mah D, Wu A, Chuang KS, Hong L, Yaparpalvi R, Sperier M, Kalniki S: A method incorporating 4D data for evaluating the dosimetric effects of respiratory motion in single arc IMAT. Phys Med Biol 55:3479–3497, 2010Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kuo HS, Liu WS, Wu A, Mah D, Chuang KS, Hong L, Yaparpalvi R, Guha C, Kalniki S: Biological impact of geometric uncertainties: what margin is needed for intra-hepatic tumors? Radiation Oncology. June, 2010.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhong H, Peters T, Siebers JV: FEM-based evaluation of deformable image registration for radiation therapy. Phys Med Biol 52:4721–4738, 2007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang H, Dong L, O’Daniel J, Mohan R, Garden AS, Ang KK, Kuban DA, Bonnen M, Chang JY, Cheung R: Validation of an accelerated ‘demons’ algorithm for deformable image registration in radiation therapy. Phys Med Biol 50:2887–2905, 2005PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chi Y, Liang J, Yan D: A material sensitivity study on the accuracy of deformable organ registration using linear biomechanical models. Med Phys 33:421–433, 2006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hsiang-Chi Kuo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Keh-Shih Chuang
    • 2
  • Dennis Mah
    • 1
  • Andrew Wu
    • 1
    • 3
  • Linda Hong
    • 1
  • Ravindra Yaparpalvi
    • 1
  • Shalom Kalnicki
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiation Oncology, Montefiore Medical CenterBronxUSA
  2. 2.Department Biomedical Engineering and Environmental SciencesNational Tsing Hua UniversityHsinchuRepublic Of China
  3. 3.Department of Radiologic SciencesThomas Jefferson UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations