nonrigid image registration using conditional mutual information loeckx et al. ipmi 2007 cmic...
TRANSCRIPT
Nonrigid Image Registration Using Conditional Mutual
InformationLoeckx et al. IPMI 2007
CMIC Journal Club 14/04/08
Ged Ridgway
Motivation – differential bias
• MRI typically corrupted by smooth intensity bias field– Worse at higher field strengths
• Approximate correction is possible
• What effect does (remaining) differential bias have on nonrigid registration?
BrainWebT1, 3% noise0 and 40% bias
Difference imgRato img
Ratio of smooth images (10 mm stdev Gaussian)
Applied BW bias
Displ. Magnitudeblack = 0white = 2mmefluid
SSD-n -400
nregSSD-ds 2.5
efluidNMI
nregNMI
Jacobianblack = 0.8white = 1.2efluid
SSD
nregSSD
efluidNMI
nregNMI
A second opinion, courtesy of Marc ModatF3D (GPU Fast FFD), 2.5mm spacing, Mutual Information
Conclusions
• Clear problem– Also for (N)MI – possibly even worse– Particularly important for Jacobian Tensor Based Morph
• Caveats– Large (+/- 40%) bias (though not that large…)– No attempt at prior correction
Summary of paper
• (Spatially) Conditional Mutual Information proposed
– An improvement over Studholme et al’s Regional MI...
• Implementation
– B-spline (quadratic) Free Form Deformation Model
– Same for image interp. (continuously differentiable)
– Parzen Window or Partial Volume histogram estimation
– Analytical derivatives in limited mem quasi-Newton optimizer
• Comparisons
– Artificial “multi-modal” data
– Lena with strong bias field
– CT/MR with clinical segmentation
• Studholme et al. (2006) proposed regional mutual information (mathematically, “total correlation”) treating spatial location as a third “channel” of info
MI and Regional MI
• The RMI objective is equivalent to optimising a weighted sum of the regional MI estimates
• P(r) is simply the relative volume of the region with respect to the whole image
MI and Regional MI
MI and Regional MI
• Studholme et al use simple boxcar kernels, overlapping by 50%
• Each voxel contributes to 2d bins in d-dimensions
• This choice simplifies the computation of the gradient
• Studholme et al implement a symmetric large deformation fluid algorithm, with analytical derivatives
Conditional MI
• Conditional entropies given the spatial distribution
• MI expresses reduction of uncertainty in R from knowing F (and vice-versa)
• cMI: reduction in uncertainty when the spatial location is known
• “cMI corresponds to the actual situation in image registration”
RMI vs cMI (not Studholme vs Loeckx)• C(R, F, X) = H(R) + H(F) + H(X) - H(R, F, X)
• I(R, F | X) = H(R | X) + H(F | X) - H(R, F | X)
• Generally, H(A, B) = H(A | B) + H(B)
• I(R, F | X) = H(R, X) + H(F, X) - H(R, F, X) - H(X)
Figure 1 revisited• Similar to probabilistic Venn diagram
– However, p(A, B) gives intersection; H(A, B) gives union
• C(R, F, X) = H(R) + H(F) + H(X) - H(R, F, X)
• I(R, F | X) = H(R, X) + H(F, X) - H(R, F, X) - H(X)
Total Correlation Conditional MI Ye Olde Traditional MI
RMI’ vs cMI (not Studholme vs Loeckx)• pr(m1,m2) = p(m1, m2 | r)
– The following seem equivalent to me…
Studholme vs Loeckx
• Fluid vs FFD– Large deformation (velocity regularised) vs small
• Symmetric vs standard (displacement in target space)
• Boxcar vs B-spline spatial Parzen window– Loeckx more principled (?)
• “same settings for knot-spacing in both formulas – local transformation guided by local joint histogram, both using the same concept and scale of locality”
• but means finer FFD levels have fewer samples…
Analytic derivatives
• “Our” FFD algorithm estimates the derivative of the cost function with respect to a particular control-point by finite differencing (moving one control point)
• Loeckx (and Studholme) show that expressions for the derivative can be obtained in closed form– Spline interpolation means the image is differentiable– The (multivariate) chain rule lets us decompose the
cost-function Jacobian into constituent parts
)()()(
)))(((
xhhggfx
h
h
g
g
f
x
xhgf
Analytic derivatives Only term depending on transformation
Analytic derivatives
Analytic derivatives of B-splines known, e.g. Thevenaz and Unser (2000)
Analytic derivatives
The paper is incomplete – see Thevenaz and Unser for more…
But we want cMI =
Results
Dice Similarity CoefficientDSC = volume of intersection / avg vol.higher is better
centroid distance cD = distance betweencentres of mass of segmentationslower is better
Objections to cMI
• Worse histogram estimation– Effectively, fewer samples– Even (unnecessarily) in homogeneous regions
• Ten times slower (!?)– Not yet clear how much re-implementation could help
• “I don’t like local histogram estimation methods…”– John Ashburner
Alternative approaches
• Reduce bias (in both images separately)– Different acquisition techniques (Ordidge)– Better correction algorithms– Use derived information, e.g. segmentations, features
• Model differential bias– Effectively part of SPM5’s Unified Segmentation algorithm
• Bias relative to unbiased tissue priors from atlas is modelled– Also done in FSL’s not-yet-released FNIRT (Jesper Andersson)
• Directly correct differential bias– E.g. filter difference or ratio image (Lewis and Fox)– Less principled?
References
• Loeckx, D.; Slagmolen, P.; Maes, F.; Vandermeulen, D. & Suetens, P. (2007) Nonrigid image registration using conditional mutual information. IPMI 20:725-737
• Studholme, C.; Drapaca, C.; Iordanova, B. & Cardenas, V. (2006) Deformation-based mapping of volume change from serial brain MRI in the presence of local tissue contrast change. IEEE TMI 25:626-639
• Thevenaz, P. & Unser, M. (2000) Optimization of mutual information for multiresolution image registration. IEEE Trans. Image Proc. 9:2083-2099
Other related papers
• Loeckx, D.; Maes, F.; Vandermeulen, D. & Suetens, P. (2006) Comparison Between Parzen Window Interpolation and Generalised Partial Volume Estimation for Nonrigid Image Registration Using Mutual Information. Workshop on Biomedical Image Registration
• Kybic, J. & Unser, M. (2003) Fast parametric elastic image registration. IEEE Trans. Image Proc.12:1427-1442
• Studholme, C.; Cardenas, V.; Song, E.; Ezekiel, F.; Maudsley, A. & Weiner, M. (2004) Accurate template-based correction of brain MRI intensity distortion with application to dementia and aging. IEEE TMI 23:99-110
• Lewis, E. B. & Fox, N. C. (2004) Correction of differential intensity inhomogeneity in longitudinal MR images. Neuroimage 23:75-83