Difference between revisions of "2017 Winter Project Week/LORDWI"

From NAMIC Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 30: Line 30:
 
* Figure out anyone is in need of DWI registration for testing, have a dataset already registered (for comparison), or can help with anatomical landmarks.
 
* Figure out anyone is in need of DWI registration for testing, have a dataset already registered (for comparison), or can help with anatomical landmarks.
 
* Consider if Slicer can be used in tandem for evaluation.  
 
* Consider if Slicer can be used in tandem for evaluation.  
* This method introduces Mutual Information to nonrigid registration of DWI. Discuss if other similarity measures (e.g. correlation measures) would be better suited for specific problems.
 
 
|
 
|
 
<!-- Progress and Next steps bullet points (fill out at the end of project week) -->
 
<!-- Progress and Next steps bullet points (fill out at the end of project week) -->
*
+
The goal was too lofty but the product was good.
 +
* Had a lot of great discussions and great discussions.
 +
* Got working on acquiring data from different sources (more problems are always welcome!)
 +
* Shared some experiences.
 +
* Got a nice introduction to Slicer.
 +
 
 
|}
 
|}
  

Revision as of 03:39, 13 January 2017

Home < 2017 Winter Project Week < LORDWI

Key Investigators

  • Henrik Groenholt Jensen, UCPH
  • Lauren J. O'Donnell, BWH
  • Tina Kapur, BWH
  • Fan Zhang, BWH
  • Carl-Fredrik Westin, BWH

Project Description

Objective Approach and Plan Progress and Next Steps
  • Objective: Evaluate/validate a density-based non-rigid registration framework for DWI (see the link below for a paper on similarity measure used).
    In short: Is this a good registration?
  • Short description: The model is based on Free-Form Deformation B-splines where the diffusion gradient directions are updated using the normalized Jacobian. B-spline interpolation is used spatially, the Watson Distribution is used (gradient) directionally. Histogram is smoothed. Similarity is NMI and optimisation is L-BFGS.
  • Discuss best ways to validate results (tractography, biomarkers, synthetic data, phantoms, others?). So far we have visually tested inter-subject registrations of HCP data, intra-subject multi-shell, and intra-subject on child brain tumor subjects.
  • Figure out anyone is in need of DWI registration for testing, have a dataset already registered (for comparison), or can help with anatomical landmarks.
  • Consider if Slicer can be used in tandem for evaluation.

The goal was too lofty but the product was good.

  • Had a lot of great discussions and great discussions.
  • Got working on acquiring data from different sources (more problems are always welcome!)
  • Shared some experiences.
  • Got a nice introduction to Slicer.

Background and References