Organizations: Department of Brain Sciences, Imperial College London, London, UK · Department of Computing, Imperial College London, London, UK · School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK · Department of Computer Science, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA · Data Science Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK
Surface registration plays an important role for anatomical shape analysis in medical imaging. Existing surface registration methods often face a trade-off between efficiency and robustness. Local point matching methods are computationally efficient, but vulnerable to noise and initialisation. Methods designed for global point set alignment tend to incur a high computational cost. To address the challenge, here we present a fast surface registration method, which formulates surface meshes as probability measures and surface registration as a distributional optimisation problem. The discrepancy between two meshes is measured using an efficient sliced Wasserstein distance with log-linear computational complexity. We propose a novel optimisation method, AdamFlow, which generalises the well-known Adam optimisation method from the Euclidean space to the probability space for minimising the sliced Wasserstein distance. We theoretically analyse the asymptotic convergence of AdamFlow and empirically demonstrate its superior performance in both affine and non-rigid surface registration across various anatomical structures.
Figures & tables
Objective
F[μ]
∇WF[μ]
Potential energy
∫RdV(x)dμ(x)
∇V(x)
Internal energy
∫RdU(μ(x))dx
∇U′(μ(x))
Negative entropy
∫Rdμ(x)logμ(x)dx
∇logμ(x)
KL divergence
KL(μ∣∣μ∗)
∇logμ∗(x)μ(x)
2-Wasserstein distance
21W22(μ,μ∗)
x−T(x)
Table 1: Commonly used objective functionals and their Wasserstein gradients. For 2-Wasserstein distance, T:Rd→Rd denotes the optimal transport map from μ to μ∗ such that the pushforward measure T♯μ=μ∗ .
Figure 1: Illustration of affine surface registration of the left ventricle of the heart and non-rigid surface registration of the liver. The surface registration is formulated as a distributional optimisation problem between a source surface ( t=0 ) and a target surface. The registration is performed by integrating a Wasserstein gradient flow for t∈[0,T] to optimise an objective functional.
Dataset
Organ
#Meshes
#Vertices
AbdomenCT-1K
Liver
360
34,553±6,229
Pancreas
360
6,194±1,889
ImageCAS
Left ventricle
500
10,420±1,551
Table 2: Dataset information for surface registration. The number of meshes and the average numbers of vertices for the meshes of each anatomical structure are reported.
Figure 2: Comparative results and convergence curves for affine and non-rigid surface registration. The registration errors are measured by ASSD (mm) and HD90 (mm). Registration errors decrease with increasing numbers of optimisation iterations.
Affine
Non-rigid
Organ
Kaffine
Ksw
Kcham
Liver
1,500
500
200
Pancreas
3,000
1,200
200
Left ventricle
1,500
100
100
Table 3: The integration steps used for affine and non-rigid registration of different anatomical surfaces.
Affine
Non-rigid
Method
ηaffine
ηsw
ηcham
ICP
10−6
–
–
WGF
10−5
0.5
0.1
HBF
10−5
0.5
0.1
Nesterov
10−7
0.005
0.005
AdamFlow
10−2
0.5
0.1
Table 4: The learning rates used in different optimisation methods for affine and non-rigid surface registration.
ASSD (mm) ↓
HD90 (mm) ↓
Method
Liver
Pancreas
Left ventricle
Liver
Pancreas
Left ventricle
ICP
8.751±3.118
6.902±3.453
2.955±0.956
23.83±13.48
20.90±15.25
6.870±3.382
WGF
7.701±1.953
5.780±1.724
2.401±0.650
16.82±4.715
13.77±4.951
5.016±1.764
HBF
7.670±1.947
5.757±1.715
2.365±0.644
16.76±4.710
13.71±4.926
4.953±1.758
Nesterov
7.555±1.926
5.511±1.649
2.172±0.631
16.55±4.691
13.07±4.662
4.602±1.733
AdamFlow
7.452±1.880∗
5.381±1.451∗
1.932±0.529∗
16.28±4.597∗
12.75±4.289∗
4.059±1.354∗
Table 5: Comparison of AdamFlow to different optimisation methods for affine surface registration. The registration errors are measured by ASSD (mm) and HD90 (mm). The best results are bolded. The symbol * indicates that AdamFlow achieves significantly better performance than all baseline methods (paired t -test, p<0.05 ).
ASSD (mm) ↓
HD90 (mm) ↓
Objective
Method
Liver
Pancreas
Left ventricle
Liver
Pancreas
Left ventricle
SWD
WGF
1.528±0.394
1.441±0.487
0.838±0.172
3.369±1.550
3.148±1.427
1.680±0.471
Chamfer
WGF
0.827±0.264
0.548±0.211
0.666±0.324
1.537±1.362
1.184±0.959
1.600±1.102
Hybrid
WGF
0.755±0.192
0.419±0.144
0.408±0.052
1.346±1.101
0.763±0.596
0.670±0.157
Hybrid
HBF
0.749±0.189
0.416±0.141
0.407±0.051
1.337±1.104
0.747±0.558
0.668±0.152
Hybrid
Nesterov
0.923±0.243
0.659±0.874
0.553±0.091
1.848±1.151
1.674±4.632
0.965±0.280
Table 6: Comparison of different objective functionals and optimisation methods for non-rigid surface registration. The registration errors are measured by ASSD (mm) and HD90 (mm). The best results are bolded. The symbol * indicates that AdamFlow achieves significantly better performance than all baseline methods (paired t -test, p<0.05 ).
Figure 3: Qualitative comparisons for affine surface registration of the liver, pancreas, and left ventricle from a source mesh to a target mesh. AdamFlow shows consistently better affine registration accuracy than the traditional ICP algorithm.
Figure 4: Qualitative comparisons for non-rigid surface registration of the liver, pancreas, and left ventricle from a source mesh to a target mesh. AdamFlow is used to minimises the SWD for global surface alignment (coarse), and then optimises the Chamfer distance for local mesh refinement (fine), enabling coarse-to-fine surface registration.
Figure 5: Runtime (millisecond) for computing the discrepancy metrics across different numbers of points.
Method
Liver
Pancreas
Left ventricle
Affine
WGF
2.47±0.33
2.72±0.21
1.54±0.06
HBF
2.53±0.34
2.82±0.21
1.60±0.05
Nesterov
2.53±0.34
2.83±0.20
1.60±0.06
AdamFlow
2.65±0.33
3.07±0.21
1.72±0.05
Non-rigid
WGF
2.52±0.43
1.40±0.15
0.41±0.04
HBF
2.53±0.43
1.43±0.15
0.41±0.04
Table 7: Runtime (second) of different optimisation methods for affine and non-rigid surface registration of three organs.
Figure 6: Effect of different numbers of Monte Carlo projections L on affine registration of pancreas surfaces with sliced Wasserstein discrepancy using AdamFlow.
Figure 7: Effect of mesh Laplacian regularisation weights λlap on non-rigid registration of liver surfaces via AdamFlow.
Figure 8: Qualitative comparison for non-rigid registration of liver surfaces with different mesh Laplacian regularisation weights λlap .
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 9: Effect of hyperparameters on affine registration of left ventricle surfaces using AdamFlow.
Medical image registration aligns scans across time, patients, or imaging modalities to track anatomy and support diagnosis, treatment, and image-guided procedures.
In this work we present Polaffini, a robust and versatile framework for anatomically grounded registration. Medical image registration is dominated by intensity-based registration methods that rely on surrogate measures of alignment quality. In contrast, feature-based approaches that operate by identifying explicit anatomical correspondences, while more desirable in theory, have largely fallen out of favor due to the challenges of reliably extracting features. However, such challenges are now significantly overcome thanks to recent advances in deep learning, which provide pre-trained segmentation models capable of instantly delivering reliable, fine-grained anatomical delineations. We aim to demonstrate that these advances can be leveraged to create new anatomically-grounded image registration algorithms. To this end, we propose Polaffini, which obtains, from these segmented regions, anatomically grounded feature points with 1-to-1 correspondence in a particularly simple way: extracting their centroids. These enable efficient global and local affine matching via closed-form solutions. Those are used to produce an overall transformation ranging from affine to polyaffine with tunable smoothness. Polyaffine transformations can have many more degrees of freedom than affine ones allowing for finer alignment, and their embedding in the log-Euclidean framework ensures diffeomorphic properties. Polaffini has applications both for standalone registration and as pre-alignment for subsequent non-linear registration, and we evaluate it against popular intensity-based registration techniques. Results demonstrate that Polaffini outperforms competing methods in terms of structural alignment and provides improved initialisation for downstream non-linear registration. Polaffini is fast, robust, and accurate, making it particularly well-suited for integration into medical image processing pipelines.
Antoine Legouhy, Cosimo Campo, Ross Callaghan +2
Hawkes Institute & Department of Computer Science, University College London, London, UK · Institut Pasteur, Universit´e Paris Cit´e, Unit´e de Neuroanatomie Appliqu´ee et Th´eorique, France · AINOSTICS ltd., Manchester, UK
Deformable registration is crucial in medical imaging. Several existing applications include lesion tracking, probabilistic atlas generation, and treatment response evaluation. However, current methods often lack robustness and generalizability across two key factors: spatial resolution and differences in anatomical coverage. We jointly optimize a registration field and a learnable dimensionality reduction module so that compressed VFM embeddings remain registration-relevant, and fuse these global semantic cues with MIND local descriptors. GLIDE-Reg achieves average dice similarity coefficients (DSC) across 6 anatomical structures of 0.859, 0.862, and 0.901 in two public cohorts (Lung250M and NLST) and one institution cohort (UCLA5DCT), and outperforms the state-of-the-art DEEDS (0.834, 0.858, 0.900) with relative improvements of 3.0%, 0.5%, and 0.1%. For target registration errors, GLIDE-Reg achieves 1.58 mm on Lung250M landmarks (compared to 1.25 mm on corrField and 1.91 mm on DEEDS) and 1.11 mm on NLST nodule centers (compared to 1.11 mm on DEEDS). The substantiated performance on the nodule centers also demonstrates its robustness across challenging downstream tasks, such as nodule tracking, which is an essential prior step for early-stage lung cancer diagnosis.
Yunzheng Zhu, Aichi Chien, Kimaya kulkarni +5
Medical & Imaging Informatics, Department of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, USA · Magnetic Resonance Research Labs, Department of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, USA · Department of Radiation Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, USA
Medical image registration is a fundamental task for aligning anatomical structures across images. Exhaustively searching for point-wise correspondences is prohibitively expensive in both computation and memory, particularly for high-resolution 3D medical images. Most recent learning-based methods directly predict correspondences in a coarse-to-fine manner, but often propagate intermediate estimates across scales without explicitly weighting correspondence evidence, which can allow coarse-scale errors to persist during refinement. To address these challenges, we propose ACorD, an adaptive correspondence discovery framework designed to mitigate error propagation with an attention-guided process. ACorD first predicts multiple potential correspondence candidates through Correlation-guided Cross-scale Offset Prediction (CCOP), which combines correlation maps as spatial matching priors with cross-scale features as global deformation context. Then, Multi-Head Deformable Aggregation (MHDA) aggregates these candidate correspondences using attention, producing a learned, non-uniform weighting over competing matches rather than treating them equally. The multi-head design further captures complementary deformation patterns, ensuring both global alignment and local precision. By integrating adaptive offset prediction with selective, attention-based aggregation of correspondence evidence, ACorD enables accurate deformation refinement. Extensive experiments on four public medical registration benchmarks demonstrate that adaptive correspondence discovery within a multi-scale refinement framework improves registration robustness across diverse anatomical structures.