1 / 48

Christos Davatzikos Director, Section of Biomedical Image Analysis Department of Radiology

Morphological Appearance Manifolds for Computational Anatomy: Group-wise Registration and Morphological Analysis. Christos Davatzikos Director, Section of Biomedical Image Analysis Department of Radiology Joint Affilliations: Electrical + Systems Engineering Bioengineering

Download Presentation

Christos Davatzikos Director, Section of Biomedical Image Analysis Department of Radiology

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Morphological Appearance Manifolds for Computational Anatomy: Group-wise Registration and Morphological Analysis Christos Davatzikos Director, Section of Biomedical Image Analysis Department of Radiology Joint Affilliations: Electrical + Systems Engineering Bioengineering University of Pennsylvania http://www.rad.upenn.edu/sbia

  2. h(.)

  3. MR image Warped template Template Template Subject

  4. Det J (.) < 1 Elastic or fluid transformation Shape A (a<1) * Identity transformation + Residual Shape B The diffeomorphism is not the best way to describe these shape differences: the residual, after a “reasonable” alignment, is better

  5. 1 1 4 1 1 Earlier attempts to include residuals • Tissue-preserving shape transformations (RAVENS maps) (Davatzikos et.al., 1998, 2001) • “modulated” VBM, Ashburner et.al., 2001 RAVENS map Original shape

  6. A variety of studies of aging, AD , schizophrenia, … Regions of longitudinal decrease of RAVENS maps in healthy elderly Alzheimer’s Disease

  7. Regions of significant but subtle brain atrophy in patients w/ schizophrenia • Brain structure in schizophrenia T-statistic Machine learning tools for identification of spatial patterns of brain structure Davatzikos et.al., Arch. of Gen. Psych.

  8. Extended Formulation for Computational Anatomy: Lossless representation

  9. HAMMER: Deformable registration • Each voxel has an attribute vector used as “morphological signature” in matching template to target • Hierarchical matching: from high-confidence correspondence to lower-confidence correspondence • (Shen and Davatzikos, 2002) Average Template Registration of 158 brains of older adults

  10. Synthesized Atrophy (thinning) Shapes with thinning Shapes w/o thinning

  11. Voxel-based statistical analysis  Statistical test (VBM, DBM, TBM, …) Registration algorithm: (Image/Feature Matching) + λ (Regularization)

  12. Detected atrophy: p-values of group differences for different  and  Residual Log-Jacobian

  13. Detected atrophy: p-values of group differences for different  and  Residual Log-Jacobian

  14. M = [h, Ri] or [log det(J), Ri] as morphological descriptor (Image/Feature Matching) + λ (Regularization) Small λ Small Residual R Large λ Large Residual R Non-uniqueness: a problem

  15.  Inter-individual and group comparisons depend on the template Template 1 Non-uniqueness B A Template 2 Group average templates alleviate this problem to some extent, but still they are single templates

  16. Anatomical Equivalence Classes formed by varying θ

  17. Related work in Computer Vision: Image Appearance Manifolds • Variations in lighting conditions • Pose differences

  18. Image appearance manifolds: Facial expression

  19. …. Morphological Appearance Manifolds

  20. Problem: Non-differentiability of IAM I2 (0,1,0) I1 (1,0,0) (0,0,1) I3 • Spatial smoothing of images  Scale-space approximations of IAM • Smoothing of the manifold via local PCA or other method

  21. From Wakin, Donoho, et.al.

  22. Some things that can be done with non-unique representations: K-NN classification and related techniques? Not appropriate for analysis Non-metric distance

  23. Find the points on these manifolds that minimize variance

  24. Unique morphological descriptor • Group-wise registration

  25. Initial Linear Approximation of the Manifolds: PCA

  26. Results from synthesized atrophy detection Optimal (min variance) Representation Log-Jacobian has much poorer detection sensitivity

  27. Best result obtained for the un-optimized [h,R] T2 T3 T1 Optimal [h*, R*]

  28. Jacobian is highly insufficient and dependent on regularization • Excellent detection of group difference and stability for the optimal descriptor Minimum p-values

  29. Best [h, R] ( = 7) Optimal [h*, R*] Detected atrophy agrees with the simulated atrophy

  30. Robust measurement of change in serial scans Time-point 1 • Longitudinal atrophy was simulated in 12 MRI scans • Plots of estimated atrophy were examined for un-optimized and optimized descriptors Time-point 2 Time-point L

  31. Regions With Simulated Atrophy

  32. Linear MAM approximation • Global PCA where is the mean of AEC and Vij is the eigen vectors • Limitation: cannot capture the nonlinearity of AEC

  33. Locally-linear MAM approximation

  34. Experimental results • Shifted 2D subjects • Shift the 2D subject randomly. Healthy subjects Patient subjects with atrophy

  35. Experimental results • Shifted 2D subjects

  36. Experimental results • Shifted 2D subjects Determinant of Jacobian RAVENS map (smaller ) RAVENS map (Larger ) Optimal, L2 norm Global PCA Optimal, L1 norm Local PCA Optimal, L1 norm Global PCA

  37. Some of the findings using nonlinear MAM approximation • Nonlinear approximations don’t necessarily improve the results, and are certainly more vulnerable to local minima • (smoothness or local minima might be the reasons) • L1-norm is a better criterion of image similarity than L2-norm

  38. Limitation: L1 distance criterion is non-differentiable. • Method: Convex programming (S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, 2004)

  39. Optimization Criterion • L1 distance criterion • Based on PCA representation: rewrite the difference of the ith and jth subjects as where , and • To simplify the expression, set , , , and then

  40. Optimization Criterion • L1 distance criterion and convex programming • L1 distance criterion: • Let , and . Then L1 distance criterion becomes: We can use convex programming to optimize the cost function.

  41. Sparse Image Representations Curse of Dimensionality in High-D Classification Non-negative matrix factorization (NMF): We can assume sample can be represented as multiplication of low rank positive matrices • It is experimentally (and under some conditions mathematically) that it leads to part-based representation of image • non-negativity yields sparsity? Not necessarily, many revision has been proposed (Orthogonality while keeping positivity, …)

  42. Optimal NMF decomposition in Alzheimer’s Disease

  43. Extension of NMF: • Find directions that form good discriminants between two groups (e.g. patients and controls) • Prefer certain directions (prior knowledge) • Avoid certain directions (e.g. directions along MAM’s) MAM1 W MAM2 MAML WTF = 0

  44. Conclusion • The conventional computational anatomy framework can be insufficient • is a complete (lossless) morphological descriptor • Non-uniqueness is resolved by solving a minimum-variance optimization problem • Robust anatomical features can potentially be extracted by seeking directions that are orthogonal to MAMs

  45. Thanks to … • Sokratis Makrogiannis • Sajjad Baloch • Naixiang Lian • Kayhan Batmanghelich

More Related