{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03169811320754717, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005283018867924529, 'mean_word_length': 5.597014925373134, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evaluation of Six Registration Methods for the Human Abdomen on Clinically Acquired CT

Objective: This work evaluates current 3-D image registration tools on clinically acquired abdominal computed tomography (CT) scans. Methods: Thirteen abdominal organs were manually labeled on a set of 100 CT images, and the 100 labeled images (i.e., atlases) were pairwise registered based on intensity information with six registration tools (FSL, ANTS-CC, ANTS-QUICK-MI, IRTK, NIFTYREG, and DEEDS). The Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), mean surface distance, and Hausdorff distance were calculated on the registered organs individually. Permutation tests and indifference-zone ranking were performed to examine the statistical and practical significance, respectively. Results: The results suggest that DEEDS yielded the best registration performance. However, due to the overall low DSC values, and substantial portion of low-performing outliers, great care must be taken when image registration is used for local interpretation of abdominal CT. Conclusion: There is substantial room for improvement in image registration for abdominal CT. Significance: All data and source code are available so that innovations in registration can be directly compared with the current generation of tools without excessive duplication of effort.