BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Alexandra Golby

Alexandra Golby appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Computer Visioneess.IV

Catalog footprint

What is connected

5works
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Learn2Reg 2024: New Benchmark Datasets Driving Progress on New Challenges

Medical image registration is critical for clinical applications, and fair benchmarking of different methods is essential for monitoring ongoing progress in the field. To date, the Learn2Reg 2020-2023 challenges have released several complementary datasets and established metrics for evaluations. Building on this foundation, the 2024 edition expands the challenge's scope to cover a wider range of registration scenarios, particularly in terms of modality diversity and task complexity, by introducing three new tasks, including large-scale multi-modal registration and unsupervised inter-subject brain registration, as well as the first microscopy-focused benchmark within Learn2Reg. The new datasets also inspired new method developments, including invertibility constraints, pyramid features, keypoints alignment and instance optimisation. Visit Learn2Reg at https://learn2reg.grand-challenge.org.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Are Registration Uncertainty and Error Monotonically Associated

In image-guided neurosurgery, current commercial systems usually provide only rigid registration, partly because it is harder to predict, validate and understand non-rigid registration error. For instance, when surgeons see a discrepancy in aligned image features, they may not be able to distinguish between registration error and actual tissue deformation caused by tumor resection. In this case, the spatial distribution of registration error could help them make more informed decisions, e.g., ignoring the registration where the estimated error is high. However, error estimates are difficult to acquire. Probabilistic image registration (PIR) methods provide measures of registration uncertainty, which could be a surrogate for assessing the registration error. It is intuitive and believed by many clinicians that high uncertainty indicates a large error. However, the monotonic association between uncertainty and error has not been examined in image registration literature. In this pilot study, we attempt to address this fundamental problem by looking at one PIR method, the Gaussian process (GP) registration. We systematically investigate the relation between GP uncertainty and error based on clinical data and show empirically that there is a weak-to-moderate positive monotonic correlation between point-wise GP registration uncertainty and non-rigid registration error.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Do Public Datasets Assure Unbiased Comparisons for Registration Evaluation?

With the increasing availability of new image registration approaches, an unbiased evaluation is becoming more needed so that clinicians can choose the most suitable approaches for their applications. Current evaluations typically use landmarks in manually annotated datasets. As a result, the quality of annotations is crucial for unbiased comparisons. Even though most data providers claim to have quality control over their datasets, an objective third-party screening can be reassuring for intended users. In this study, we use the variogram to screen the manually annotated landmarks in two datasets used to benchmark registration in image-guided neurosurgeries. The variogram provides an intuitive 2D representation of the spatial characteristics of annotated landmarks. Using variograms, we identified potentially problematic cases and had them examined by experienced radiologists. We found that (1) a small number of annotations may have fiducial localization errors; (2) the landmark distribution for some cases is not ideal to offer fair comparisons. If unresolved, both findings could incur bias in registration evaluation.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

On the Applicability of Registration Uncertainty

Estimating the uncertainty in (probabilistic) image registration enables, e.g., surgeons to assess the operative risk based on the trustworthiness of the registered image data. If surgeons receive inaccurately calculated registration uncertainty and misplace unwarranted confidence in the alignment solutions, severe consequences may result. For probabilistic image registration (PIR), the predominant way to quantify the registration uncertainty is using summary statistics of the distribution of transformation parameters. The majority of existing research focuses on trying out different summary statistics as well as a means to exploit them. Distinctively, in this paper, we study two rarely examined topics: (1) whether those summary statistics of the transformation distribution most informatively represent the registration uncertainty; (2) Does utilizing the registration uncertainty always be beneficial. We show that there are two types of uncertainties: the transformation uncertainty, Ut, and label uncertainty Ul. The conventional way of using Ut to quantify Ul is inappropriate and can be misleading. By a real data experiment, we also share a potentially critical finding that making use of the registration uncertainty may not always be an improvement.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

GBM Volumetry using the 3D Slicer Medical Image Computing Platform

Volumetric change in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) over time is a critical factor in treatment decisions. Typically, the tumor volume is computed on a slice-by-slice basis using MRI scans obtained at regular intervals. (3D)Slicer - a free platform for biomedical research - provides an alternative to this manual slice-by-slice segmentation process, which is significantly faster and requires less user interaction. In this study, 4 physicians segmented GBMs in 10 patients, once using the competitive region-growing based GrowCut segmentation module of Slicer, and once purely by drawing boundaries completely manually on a slice-by-slice basis. Furthermore, we provide a variability analysis for three physicians for 12 GBMs. The time required for GrowCut segmentation was on an average 61% of the time required for a pure manual segmentation. A comparison of Slicer-based segmentation with manual slice-by-slice segmentation resulted in a Dice Similarity Coefficient of 88.43 +/- 5.23% and a Hausdorff Distance of 2.32 +/- 5.23 mm.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access