TPFM-DIR: Two-Parameter Flow Map Diffeomorphic Image Registration

Two-Parameter Flow Map Learning for Continuous-Time Diffeomorphic Image Registration


University of Alberta
Moving

Source

Warped

Warped

Fixed

Target

Sample result of TPFMDIR over a sample of LPBA40 dataset.

Abstract

Diffeomorphic image registration is central to medical image analysis, enabling anatomically consistent alignment across subjects. Most learning-based diffeomorphic methods model autonomous ODEs (ordinary differential equations) by parameterizing a stationary velocity field and recovering deformations via scaling-and-squaring. While non-autonomous ODEs with time-dependent velocities increase expressiveness, existing approaches rely on numerical integration to implicitly enforce flow structure that entangles model expressiveness with discretization accuracy. We propose a framework to directly learn the continuous-time solution of a non-autonomous ODE formulated as a two-parameter flow map. By enforcing cocycle consistency, a fundamental structural property of time-varying flows, we learn the flow maps without time discretization and velocity integration during training. The framework recovers diffeomorphic mappings at inference using a small number of compositions. Our proposed framework seamlessly incorporates standard registration backbones and improves alignment accuracy consistently across nine datasets while preserving diffeomorphic structure. Notably, the proposed method achieves an average Dice improvement of 2.1% on brain MRI benchmarks, a 12% TRE reduction on lung CT, and a 2.6\% Dice gain on cardiac MRI and ultrasound datasets.

Presentation Video

TPFMDIR in a Nutshell

  • TPFMDIR is a registration framework; it is architecture-agnostic as long as the architecture supports time injection and is appropriately designed for image registration
  • TPFMDIR has only one regularization term (anchored cocycle regularization) and provably recovers the solution of a non-autonomous ODE (an ODE with time-dependent velocity field).
  • TPFM-DIR extends previous SGDIR framework from autonomous ODEs to non-autonomous ODEs with minimal structural changes and without losing theoretical guarantees.
TPFMDIR scheme figure

TPFMDIR Methodology

To model a diffeomorphism $\phi$ warping a moving image $I_m$ to a fixed image $I_f$, TPFMDIR learns the solution of a non-autonomous ODE

$$ \begin{cases} \frac{d\phi_t}{dt} &= v(\phi_t, t) \\ \phi_0 &= \mathrm{id} \end{cases} $$

TPFMDIR takes the dynamical systems perspective of the ODE solutions:

$$ \phi_0 = \mathrm{Id},\quad\underbrace{\phi_{r, t}\circ\phi_{s, r}=\phi_{s, t}}_\text{Cocycle Property} \iff \begin{cases}\frac{d\phi_{s, t}}{dt} &= v(\phi_{s, t}, t) \\\phi_0 &= \mathrm{id}\end{cases}\quad\text{(for some velocity field }v\text{)} $$

Note that, for the non-autonomous ODE, the solution depends on both the initial time $s$ and the end time $t$, whereas for the stationary case, the solution only depends on the elapsed time. This is the reason the solutions are called two-parameter family.

Usually, to find the solution of such non-autonomous ODEs, the velocity field $v(., t)$ is modeled and the solution is obtained by expensive numerical integrations such as RK4 method. The cost of such methods for the task of medical image registration which usually deals with large images, has caused this type of modeling to be largely overlooked.

TPFMDIR mitigates this issue and directly models the two-parameter flow map solution of the ODE and learns the diffeomorphism without velocity parameterization, without any numerical integration, and withour multiple regularization terms.

To this end, TPFMDIR introduces a anchored cocycle regularization as the only regularization term and employs a time-dependent loss function, which provably drives the model towards learning the ODE solution, hence inheriting their smoothness and diffeomorphic properties.

TPFMDIR concept figure

Importantly, we show that the full cocycle property is deducible from the anchored cocycle regularization. Practically, we don't need independent time poinst $r$, $s$ and $t$ to impose the full cocycle; rather, only using time points $s$ and $t$ suffices for a guaranteed learning of the ODE solution:

$$ \underbrace{\phi_{s, t}\circ\phi_{0, s}=\phi_{0, t}, \phi_{t, s}\circ\phi_{1, t}=\phi_{1, s}}_\text{Anchored Cocycle Property} \implies \underbrace{\phi_{r, t}\circ\phi_{s, r}=\phi_{s,t}}_\text{Full Cocycle Property} $$

Moreover, we show that without any numerical differentiation, one could extract the learned underlying instataneous velocity field governing the dynamics of the ODE.

Instantaneous Velocity

Results Summary

  • TPFMDIR is evaluated on 9 2D/3D datasets: OASIS, IXI, LPBA40, Mindboggle101, CANDI, LungCT, AbdomenCTCT, ACDC, and CAMUS
  • TPFMDIR is compared with more than 15 strong baselines including GradICON, NODEO, NePhi, TransMorph, TransMatch, DiffuseReg, HViT, CorrMLP, SACB-Net, etc.
TPFMDIR results figure

Method OASIS IXI LPBA40 Mindboggle101 CANDI
$\text{DSC} \uparrow$ $|J_\phi|_{<0}\% \downarrow$ $\text{DSC} \uparrow$ $|J_\phi|_{<0}\% \downarrow$ $\text{DSC} \uparrow$ $|J_\phi|_{<0}\% \downarrow$ $\text{DSC} \uparrow$ $|J_\phi|_{<0}\% \downarrow$ $\text{DSC} \uparrow$ $|J_\phi|_{<0}\% \downarrow$
LDDMM 76.59 0.0064 67.90 0.0034 69.23 0.0011 64.57 0.0061 78.52 0.0017
TransMorph-diff 83.51 0.0066 75.98 0.0142 70.98 0.0086 69.45 0.0364 83.20 0.0026
GradICON 83.74 0.0039 76.43 0.0018 74.21 0.0011 70.78 0.0117 83.29 0.0015
HViT 85.07 0.4812 80.67 0.5933 76.57 0.4428 71.80 1.4051 83.67 0.1368
CorrMLP 84.66 0.4640 77.54 0.3675 75.72 0.0145 71.92 0.1895 81.96 0.0098
SGDIR $(\lambda=10^5)$ 85.90 0.0003 80.18 0.0 77.13 0.0 71.58 0.0004 84.50 0.0003
SGDIR $(\lambda=10^4)$ 87.82 0.3982 83.88 0.6036 78.93 0.1821 73.59 0.6512 85.51 0.0473
TPFMDIR 87.08 0.0019 82.52 0.0015 77.87 0.0005 74.79 0.0012 84.77 0.0001
IXI results figure
Sample results and comparison on the IXI dataset. Folding percentage as $|J_\phi|_{<0}\%$ and SDLogJ metrics are shown in the lower left and the lower right corners of deformations. Dice scores are reported at the bottom of each warping result.

TPFMDIR Architecture Agnosticism
Effect of training different architecture with and without TPFMDIR framework on accuracy and regularity.
Method LungCT
$\text{TRE} \downarrow$ $|J_\phi|_{<0}\% \downarrow$
GradICON 2.64 0.0009
SACB-Net 3.01 0.9824
SGDIR $(\lambda = 10^5)$ 2.37 0.0
TPFMDIR 2.19 0.0
Method AbdomenCTCT
$\text{DSC} \uparrow$ $|J_\phi|_{<0}\% \downarrow$
NePhi 45.32 0.0008
SACB-Net 53.38 0.9348
SGDIR $(\lambda=10^5)$ 53.64 0.0
TPFMDIR 54.54 0.0002
Method ACDC CAMUS (ultrasound)
$\text{DSC} \uparrow$ $|J_\phi|_{<0}\% \downarrow$ $\text{DSC} \uparrow$ $|J_\phi|_{<0}\% \downarrow$
DiffuseReg 83.31 0.2345 77.29 0.4026
AdaCS 85.46 0.1493 82.67 0.0029
SGDIR $(\lambda = 10^5)$ 85.79 0.0 83.91 0.0
TPFMDIR 87.42 0.0002 85.12 0.0
ACDC results figure
Sample results and comparison on the ACDC and CAMUS datasets.

BibTeX

Comming Soon