Researcher profile

Sarah Frisken

Sarah Frisken contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

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

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Double-Uncertainty Guided Spatial and Temporal Consistency Regularization Weighting for Learning-based Abdominal Registration

In order to tackle the difficulty associated with the ill-posed nature of the image registration problem, regularization is often used to constrain the solution space. For most learning-based registration approaches, the regularization usually has a fixed weight and only constrains the spatial transformation. Such convention has two limitations: (i) Besides the laborious grid search for the optimal fixed weight, the regularization strength of a specific image pair should be associated with the content of the images, thus the "one value fits all" training scheme is not ideal; (ii) Only spatially regularizing the transformation may neglect some informative clues related to the ill-posedness. In this study, we propose a mean-teacher based registration framework, which incorporates an additional temporal consistency regularization term by encouraging the teacher model's prediction to be consistent with that of the student model. More importantly, instead of searching for a fixed weight, the teacher enables automatically adjusting the weights of the spatial regularization and the temporal consistency regularization by taking advantage of the transformation uncertainty and appearance uncertainty. Extensive experiments on the challenging abdominal CT-MRI registration show that our training strategy can promisingly advance the original learning-based method in terms of efficient hyperparameter tuning and a better tradeoff between accuracy and smoothness.

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.

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.

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.