search

YipengHu / label-reg

(This repo is no longer up-to-date. Any updates will be at https://github.com/DeepRegNet/DeepReg/) A demo of the re-factored label-driven registration code, based on "Weakly-supervised convolutional neural networks for multimodal image registration"
Apache License 2.0
118 stars 32 forks source link
convolutional-neural-networks deep-learning image-guided-interventions medical-image-registration tensorflow weakly-supervised-learning

readme

Weakly-Supervised Convolutional Neural Networks for Multimodal Image Registration

Introduction

This demo provides minimum and self-explanatory scripts to re-work the implementation of a deep-learning-based image registration method in Hu et al 2018 (and the preliminary work in Hu et al ISBI2018). A re-implementation with other utilities is also available at NiftyNet Platform. The sections are organised as follows:

Using this code, one should be able to re-produce the entire method from training to inference and, possibly (with a bit linking-up with a GUI of choice), to deploy the learned model for some real-time surgical guidance!

1 Multimodal Image Registration

Medical image registration aims to find a dense displacement field (DDF), such that a given "moving image" can be warped (transformed or spatially resampled using the predicted DDF) to match a second "fixed image". Matching in the example application means the same anatomical structures are aligned at the same spatial locations, technically also known as establishing dense correspondence. A DDF is typically a set of displacements (in x-, y- and z components) defined at every voxel in the fixed image coordinates, so each set is about three times of the size of the fixed image. They usually are inverted displacements (i.e. from fixed to moving) to resample intensities from fixed image (which is the one being warped to moving image coordinates).

The definition of "multimodal" varies from changing of imaging parameters (such as MR sequencing or contrast agents) to images from different scanners. An example application is to support 3D-ultrasound-guided intervention for prostate cancer patients. The 3D ultrasound images look like this: alt text In these procedures, the urologists would like to know where the suspicious regions are, so they can take a tissue sample to confirm pathology, i.e. biopsy, or they may treat certain small areas such as a tumour, i.e. focal therapy. They also want to avoid other healthy delicate surrounding or internal structures such as nerves, urethra, rectum and bladder. However, from ultrasound imaging, it is hard enough to work out the boundaries of the prostate gland, let alone the detailed anatomical and pathological structures.

MR imaging, on the other hand, provides a better tissue contrast (for human eyes anyway) to localise these interesting structures. Here are some example slices from a 3D MR volume: alt text The catch is that the MR imaging is difficult and expensive to use during those procedures. For examples, they are susceptible to metal instruments and require longer imaging time (you might need to wait half hour to get full multi-parametric sequences to reliably find where the tumour is, that is even before the radiologist's full report), so they are usually only available before the procedure. If the MR image can be spatially aligned with the ultrasound image in real-time, all the information can then be "registered" from the MR to the ultrasound images, very useful during the ultrasound-guided procedures. It sounds like a good solution, but turned out to be a difficult problem, stimulating a decade-long research topic. The technical article provides many references and examples describing the detailed difficulties and attempted solutions. This demo describes an alternative using deep learning. The main advantage is that the resulting registration between the 3D data is fast (several 3D registrations in one second), fully-automated and easy-to-implement.

In this application, the ultrasound images will be considered as the fixed image, while the MR image will be the moving image. It is only a practical choice to avoid unnecessary extrapolation, such that, when warping, the intensities from the image with larger field-of-view (usually the case of MR) can be resampled at the (ultrasound) image coordinates that cover smaller field-of-view.

Example Data

This demo uses some make-believe (fewer, smaller and blurred) data for tutorial purpose. They can be downloaded by clicking the following link:

Download Example Data

First unzip the downloaded data to folders, which you need to specify in config_demo.ini in order to run the application.

In summary, for each numbered patient, there is a quartet of data, a 3D MR volume, a 3D ultrasound volume, several anatomical landmark pairs delineated from MR and ultrasound volumes. The landmark volumes are in 4D with the fourth dimension indicates different types of landmarks, such as the prostate gland and the apex/base points (where urethra enters and exists prostate gland).

2 Weakly-Supervised Dense Correspondence Learning

The idea of the weakly-supervised learning is to use labels that represent the same anatomical structures. Depending on one's viewpoint, this type of label-driven methods can be considered as being "lazy" (e.g. compared to simulating complex biological deformation or engineering sophisticated similarity measure, used in supervised or unsupervised approaches, respectively) or as being an "industrious effort" as an non-trivial amount of manually-annotated anatomical structures in volumetric data are required.

While the goal of registration is predicting DDF which we do not have ground-truth data for, the method is considered as "weakly-supervised" because the anatomical labels are used only in training. They are treated as if they are the "target labels" instead of "input predictors" in a classical regression analysis. More on the topic of weakly-supervised registration is discussed and it is not in the papers! ;)

The trick here is to use only images (moving and fixed) as input to the neural network without any labels, but the network-predicted DDF can be used to warp the associated labels (from the moving image) to match to labels from the target image, as shown in the picture: alt text

As a result, labels are not required in the subsequent inference, i.e. the registration predicting DDFs. It is, therefore, a fully-automated image registration accepts a pair of images and predicts a DDF, without segmentation of any kind to aid alignment or initialisation. alt text

Label Similarity Measures

If we had landmarks as small as image voxels densely populated across the image domain, learning dense correspondence (also represented as DDF) becomes a supervised learning problem. The challenge is that anatomical labels representing corresponding structures are inherently sparse. Among training cases, the same anatomical structures are not always present on a moving image and on a fixed image; when available, they neither cover the entire image domain nor detailed voxel correspondence. The following show example types of landmarks that can be found and reliably delineated in real cases, prostate glands in blue, a cyst in orange (left) and a cluster of calcification in yellow (right). While the prostate glands (possibly the most consistent and the only landmarks that are always available across all cases) may be found on both images for both cases, patient-specific cysts or calcifications can only be identified on a case-by-case basis. alt text

An efficient implementation of the differentiable Dice with spatial smoothing on labels is used here to deal with the label sparsity. The entrance function for the implemented multi-scale Dice is multi_scale_loss in losses.py.

Although the use of the Dice lost the intuitive interpretation of the statistical distribution assumed on the weak labels of correspondence, multi-scale Dice works well in practice as a generic loss function. More on this is discussed in Section 4 Weakly-Supervised Registration Revisited.

Convolutional Neural Networks for Predicting Displacements

Registration Network used here has a subtly different meaning, compare with those considering all layers having gradient passing through as a part of the network. Conceptually, a registration network is only the part of computation graph (in TensorFlow language) that accepts a pair of images and predicts a DDF. The entire graph has other components/layers to construct the loss function, including warping labels and computing multiscale Dice for instance.

The module networks.py implements the main registration network and some variants. The network architecture is a modified encoder-decoder convolutional neural network with two features:

The details of some motivation of the architectural features are explained in the paper. More options, such as the additive output layers, can be configured by overwriting the default argument _ddflevels of LocalNet class in networks.py, which is the default _networktype capable of predicting nonrigid displacements. alt text

Deformation Regularisation

Partly due to the sparsity of the training labels, regularisation of the predicted deformation field is essential. Borrowing the regularisation strategy used in traditional image registration algorithms as well as those from classical mechanics, smoothness of the entire displacement field is penalised in addition to the label similarity measures. In essence, these functions measure how non-smooth the DDF is, based on the first- and/or second order derivatives of the displacement w.r.t. the spatial (image) coordinates. The main function implementing default _regularisertype bending energy can be found in compute_bending_energy in losses.py, among other choices of regularisation.

Training

The local registration network (Convolutional Neural Networks for Predicting Displacements) is the default architecture:

reg_net = network.build_network('local',
                                minibatch_size=4,
                                image_moving=input_moving_image,
                                image_fixed=input_fixed_image)

The benefit of separating the registration network from the other parts of computation graph will be seen in the later inference stage.

The loss function is constructed by first setting placeholders for label data (N.B. labels appear now and are not used in predicting DDF), with data augmentation using the same affine transformations:

ph_moving_label = tf.placeholder(tf.float32, [4]+reader_moving_image.data_shape+[1])
ph_fixed_label = tf.placeholder(tf.float32, [4]+reader_fixed_image.data_shape+[1])
input_moving_label = util.warp_image_affine(ph_moving_label, ph_moving_affine)  # data augmentation
input_fixed_label = util.warp_image_affine(ph_fixed_label, ph_fixed_affine)  # data augmentation

Then, warp the moving labels using the predicted DDFs:

warped_moving_label = reg_net.warp_image(input_moving_label)

Finally, the label similarity measure and the weighted deformation regularisation can then be constructed between the warped moving labels and the fixed labels:

loss_similarity, loss_regulariser = loss.build_loss(similarity_type='dice',
                                                    similarity_scales=[0,1,2,4,8,16],
                                                    regulariser_type='bending',
                                                    regulariser_weight=0.5,
                                                    label_moving=warped_moving_label,
                                                    label_fixed=input_fixed_label,
                                                    network_type='local',
                                                    ddf=reg_net.ddf)

The default _similarityscales (in unit of voxel) are fewer than what used for real data as the reduced size of the example data. For a rule of thumb, this may be chosen so the 3 times of the largest standard deviation can cover the majority of the image domain. The _regulariserweight will be dependent on data and application, such as how sparse the training labels are.

train_op = tf.train.AdamOptimizer(1e-5).minimize(loss_similarity+loss_regulariser)

The main iterative minibatch gradient descent is fairly standard, except for the two-stage clustering sampling when sampling the label data, after the image pairs being sampled. This is useful because different image pairs have different numbers of labels, a consequence for exploiting ad hoc anatomical labels (further discussed in the papers). Importantly, this can form a compact training minibatch of image-label quartets with a fixed size, as defined in the placeholders in the previous steps, enabling efficient use of the parallel computing resource.

A standard minibatch optimisation can be trivially modified to uniformly sample a label pair (moving and fixed) from those available label pairs delineated on each (first-stage-sampled) image pair (i.e. moving and fixed images from one patient/subject). Assuming a minibatch size of 4, _numlabels[i] is the number of available labels for ith image pair:

    # in each iteration step
    minibatch_idx = step % num_minibatch
    case_indices = train_indices[minibatch_idx*4:(minibatch_idx+1)*4]
    label_indices = [random.randrange(reader_moving_label.num_labels[i]) for i in case_indices]

where:

num_minibatch = int(reader_moving_label.num_data/4)
train_indices = [i for i in range(reader_moving_label.num_data)]

Two utility computing nodes are also included for monitoring the training process. Here, the binary Dice, dice, and distance between centroids, dist, are implemented in utils.py.

The Dice scores should be consistently above 0.90 after a few thousand iterations on the gland segmentation labels (for convenience, gland segmentations are always the first landmark, i.e. _labelindex=0, in the example data. But this is not a requirement and will be shuffled before feeding.) The top-level scripts, training.py contains all the necessary training code with simple file IO support. Read the Section 3 for more information on how to run the code with real imaging data.

Inference

Considering the difference between the inference and the training is an effective way to obtain insight of this registration method. The first difference is on the data. While the training requires moving-fixed-image-label quartets, inference only needs a pair of moving and fixed images:

reader_moving_image, reader_fixed_image, _, _ = helper.get_data_readers('~/git/label-reg/data/test/mr_images',
                                                                        '~/git/label-reg/data/test/us_images')
ph_moving_image = tf.placeholder(tf.float32, [reader_moving_image.num_data]+reader_moving_image.data_shape+[1])
ph_fixed_image = tf.placeholder(tf.float32, [reader_fixed_image.num_data]+reader_fixed_image.data_shape+[1])

First, restore the trained network (only the _regnet for predicting DDF and trained weights):

reg_net = network.build_network(network_type='local',
                                minibatch_size=reader_moving_image.num_data,
                                image_moving=ph_moving_image,
                                image_fixed=ph_fixed_image)

saver = tf.train.Saver()
sess = tf.Session()
saver.restore(sess, '~/git/label-reg/data/model.ckpt')

Then, the DDF can be computed using one-pass evaluation on the pairs of images to register:

testFeed = {ph_moving_image: reader_moving_image.get_data(),
            ph_fixed_image: reader_fixed_image.get_data()}
ddf = sess.run(reg_net.ddf, feed_dict=testFeed)

Technically, that's it for inference.

Depending on the application, the predicted DDF can be used in several ways, such as a) warping the moving MR images given a real-time ultrasound image, b) warping a binary image representing segmentation(s) on the moving MR image (such as a tumour), c) transforming the real-time information (such as surgical instrument position) back to the MR image space or d) transforming a MR-defined point cloud to ultrasound imaging coordinates (N.B. in this case an inverting of the predicted transformation may be required). This tutorial also demonstrates a function _warp_volumes_byddf using TensorFlow (apps.py) to warp MR images or MR-defined labels in batches on GPU:

warped_images = app.warp_volumes_by_ddf(reader_moving_image.get_data(), ddf)

data_moving_label = helper.DataReader('~/git/label-reg/data/test/mr_labels').get_data(label_indices=[0])
warped_labels = app.warp_volumes_by_ddf(data_moving_label, ddf)

Example inference script is in the top-level inference.py, which can also be used as an application for your own image-label data.

3 Try with Your Own Image-Label Data

Obtain a copy of the code

TensorFlow needs to be installed first, with a handful standard python modules, numpy, random, os, sys, time and nibabel (for file IO only), all easily available if not already installed. Get a copy of the code, e.g. on Linux:

git clone https://github.com/yipenghu/label-reg

or download from here:

Download Code (zip file)

Prepare images and labels

Data files readable by NiBabel should work with the DataReader in helpers.py. The quartets of moving-and-fixed image-and-label data should be organised as follows in order to run the code without modification:

One can customise a config file to specify other parameters mentioned in the tutorial. Use the same config_demo.ini file as a template. Both training.py and inference.py can take a command line argument for the customised config file path, for example:

python3 ~/git/label-reg/training.py ~/myTrainingConfig.ini

The trained model will be saved in file_model_save under [Train] section specified in config_demo.ini.

python3 inference.py  myInferenceConfig.ini

For demo purpose, three files, the ddf, warped_image and warped_label (if dir_moving_label under [Inference] is supplied in config_demo.ini) will be saved in dir_save under [Inference] section specified in config_demo.ini.

For a list of currently available top-level options:

python3 training.py -help
python3 inference.py -help

That's it.

4 Weakly-Supervised Registration Revisited

First, weakly-supervised learning is not a rigorously defined term. It was not mentioned at all in Ian Goodfellow's Deep Learning book. Strictly speaking, the registration method used here is still an unsupervised regression without the labels for targets (i.e. the displacements) that need to be predicted. The target labels of registration should be ground-truth displacement fields which are not easily available (the main point that motivates this method). The fact that the method uses images and anatomical labels in training while only the images are used in testing is closely related to learning with privileged information. One possibile formulation of the weak supervision is multiple instance learning, but this may be beyond the scope of this tutorial. Instead, the initial work Hu et al ISBI2018 explored an intuitive idea to consider a two-class classification problem, where the abstract concept of correspondence was used. The two voxels, warped and fixed, at the same imaging coordinate belong to either correspondent or not correspondent. In this case, the segmentations of different types of anatomical regions become noise-corrupted data of these correspondence, that is, being correspondent if both are foreground 1s or both are background 0s, not correspondent otherwise. A well-defined cross-entropy was used to measure the overall classification loss.

The main problem with the two-class formulation is weighting. The cross-entropy assumes no difference between voxel locations that are nearer to boundaries and those are not. It does not distinguish difference between foreground and background, which can be largely altered by imaging parameters (such as acquired fields-of-view). It treats different types of anatomical regions with different volumes/shapes equally. For example, a voxel in the foreground segmentation of the gland should, without any other information, be a weaker correspondence label than that from a foreground voxel from very small landmark, as the latter is a strong predictor for where this voxel should move to, although it helps very little to indicate the displacement field everywhere else in the background. This is why some heavy heuristic preprocessing label smoothing was used in the original attempt.

Overlap measures, such as Dice, have an interesting quality to re-weight between these classes, with the changing denominator of Dice (as overlap changes) acting as a "dynamic" weighting mechanism. Therefore, it has been adopted in medical image segmentation tasks with consistently superior performance (after all, it is the measure for evaluating segmentation). A similar effect has also been observed in the label-driven registration tasks. The multi-scale strategy is to mitigate the practical issues on the landmarks with smaller volumes, so they will still produce non-zero gradients even without overlap during training, as shown in the following picture with different types of landmarks being filtered at different scales: alt text

It may be the case that, due to the nature of weakly-supervised learning, different formulations of the loss function, or the combination of the loss and the regularisation, is only a different weighting strategy to "guess" the dense correspondence. Without ground-truth (for training and validation), this will inherently be dependent on image modalities and applications. Therefore, it may be better to investigate application-specific loss functions (such as better surrogates of the true TREs on regions of interest).

The downside of Dice, however, is that it lacks a clear interpretation of the weak-supervision, leaning towards a general unsupervised learning where any loss function is sensible if it drives the image alignment. The practical difference worthy a name such as "weak supervision" is perhaps that the loss function is not dependent on the image modality, only applied on segmentation labels. This, to certain degree, is closer to traditional feature-based registration method, while the role of neural network is a better way to learn the feature representation. It also reflects the fact that this method, compared with other unsupervised learning, relies on anatomical knowledge in human labelling instead of statistical properties of image-matching (e.g. through image-based similarity measures).

Even with unlimited data pairs, there ought to be physical bounds of the label availability partly due to the underlying imaging process that simply do not produce voxel-level correspondence information and partly due to limited anatomical knowledge. In this case, prior knowledge on, for example, application-specific physical transformation instead of bending energy for instance and combining with other intensity-based similarity might provide further assistance.

Acknowledgement The author is grateful for a CMIC Platform Fellowship and a Medical Image Analysis Network Knowledge Exchange Project, both funded by UK EPSRC.