CORE -- A Cell-Level Coarse-to-Fine Image Registration Engine for Multi-stain Image Alignment

Adam Shephard; Behnaz Elhaminia; Catherine King; David Snead; Dimitrios Chanouzas; Esha Sadia Nasir; Lorraine Harper; Mark Eastwood; Nasir Rajpoot; Owen Cain

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 36 references

CORE -- A Cell-Level Coarse-to-Fine Image Registration Engine for Multi-stain Image Alignment

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A two-stage pipeline aligns multi-stain tissue slides down to nuclei-level precision.

desk verdict Useful coarse-to-fine WSI registration platform with a genuinely fast coarse stage, but the nuclei-level claim outruns the evidence: all fine-stage numbers are TRE on sparse manual landmarks, not on nuclei. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.03826 v4 pith:XIS7KXHV submitted 2025-11-05 q-bio.QM cs.AI

Esha Sadia Nasir , Behnaz Elhaminia , Mark Eastwood , Catherine King , Owen Cain , Lorraine Harper , Paul Moss , Dimitrios Chanouzas

show 4 more authors

David Snead Nasir Rajpoot Adam Shephard Shan E Ahmed Raza

This is my paper

classification q-bio.QMcs.AI

keywords wholeslideimageregistrationmulti-stainalignmentnucleipoint-setcoarse-to-finecoherentpointdriftshape-awarecomputationalpathologyimmunofluorescence

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces CORE, a coarse-to-fine whole-slide image registration engine intended to align tissue sections stained with different protocols—H&E, IHC, PAS, and multiplex immunofluorescence—down to nuclei-level precision. Its central claim is that a fast coarse alignment based on tissue masks and deep local features, followed by a fine alignment based on automatically detected nuclei centroids and deformable point-set matching, beats existing registration methods on accuracy, generality, and speed. The payoff, if the claim holds, is that researchers can combine information across stains without manual landmarking or stain-specific tuning, enabling cell-level multimodal analysis of large pathology images. The paper evaluates this on three public and two private cohorts, reporting median fine-stage errors below one micrometre on re-stained sections and a coarse stage that completes in roughly 15–20 seconds.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the automatically detected nuclei centroid point set. The method's distinctive identity is a hybrid shape-aware distance metric that combines Euclidean distance between transformed source nuclei and target nuclei with the absolute difference of their normalised per-nucleus areas, balanced by a weight parameter set to 0.3. This metric drives a derivative-free Powell optimisation for rigid alignment, and the resulting correspondences feed Coherent Point Drift, a probabilistic non-rigid point-set registration algorithm, to produce the final dense displacement field. The paper also relies on a prompt-based tissue mask extraction step and an accelerated deep feature mat

What would settle it

Measure CORE's fine-stage target registration error on slide pairs with artificially withheld or poorly detected nuclei—for example, by running the watershed detector on patches with dense overlapping lymphocyte clusters and comparing against manual landmarks. If the median fine error rises sharply when detection completeness drops below roughly 90 percent, the central nuclei-correspondence premise is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that whole-slide registration across very different stains can be made both fast and nuclei-accurate by separating the problem into a morphology-first coarse stage and a nuclei-point-set fine stage. The coarse stage uses prompt-based tissue masks, centre-of-mass alignment, discrete rotation search, and accelerated dense feature matching at low magnification to produce a global alignment in about 15–20 seconds. The fine stage then detects nuclei centroids in the target and coarsely registered source, applies a shape-aware rigid point-set alignment that mixes spatial distance with normalised nuclear area, and finishes with Coherent Point Drift

Load-bearing premise

The fine stage assumes that automatically detected nuclei in one stain line up as corresponding landmarks with nuclei in the other stain; if detection fails or produces non-corresponding centroids in dense, overlapping, or artefact-heavy tissue, the point-set fit will target the wrong correspondences.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A fast, accurate coarse alignment becomes available as a standalone step, making interactive or high-throughput registration possible where nuclei-level precision is not required.
The same untuned pipeline can align bright-field stains such as H&E, IHC, and PAS with multiplex immunofluorescence, a cross-modality combination that is difficult for stain-specific methods.
Cell-level downstream analyses, such as matching single cells across stains or linking phenotype to morphology, can be run on the fine-stage output without manual landmark selection.
Because nuclei detection is morphology-based rather than trained per stain, the method transfers to new stain protocols without needing annotated nuclei datasets.
If the reported sub-micrometre errors on re-stained sections are reproducible, the fine stage reaches the precision needed to treat nuclei as corresponding biological units across staining rounds.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The paper leaves implicit that the coarse stage's speed makes it suitable for interactive browsing or triage, but the reported runtime is for the alignment computation itself, not for full-resolution rendering or visualisation.
A natural stress test the paper does not run is registration of slide pairs with large tissue folds or tears inside the tissue mask; such cases would exercise the rigid coarse estimate and the Jacobian-based folding correction simultaneously.
The point-set machinery could be transferred to other intrinsic landmarks—glands, vessels, or immune-cell clusters—which would extend the method to tissues where nuclei are not the most reliable modality-invariant feature.
The explicit dependence on nuclei detection suggests that a version of CORE using a learned detector, trained only where annotated nuclei exist, could improve the fine stage in dense tissue while keeping the coarse-to-fine structure intact.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Read CORE carefully. The stress-test note lands, and the reader's conditional verdict is about right.

The headline claim is that CORE achieves precise nuclei-level correspondence across H&E, IHC, PAS, and mIF. But every quantitative accuracy number in Tables 2–6 is TRE or rTRE on manually placed landmarks. Those landmarks are not shown to coincide with nuclei centroids, and in HYRECO they are 11–19 per section. So the fine stage's actual objective—aligning nuclei point sets—is never evaluated with a nuclei-level metric. Qualitative overlays don't fix that. This is not a completeness nit; it is the main advertised novelty. The paper's own limitations paragraph admits the fine stage depends on accurate nuclei detection, which is honest, but even a perfect detector would not rescue the claim when the metric cannot resolve whether nuclei are aligned.

Credit where due. The coarse stage is fast, about 14 seconds on ACROBAT, and competitive with published methods across several datasets. Prompt-based tissue masking with Florence2-SAM followed by XFeat is a reasonable integration, not a breakthrough but a working one. The fine-stage design—morphology watershed centroids, a hybrid spatial-shape distance, Powell rigid alignment, CPD non-rigid—is coherent and described well enough to reproduce. The stepwise tables let you see error drop at each stage, which is honest engineering reporting. The self-citation of DFBR and TIATOOLBOX is minor and not circular.

Soft spots, in proportion. The ANHIR fine-stage comparison covers only the 20x/40x subset while the baselines cover all pairs, so the "outperforms" line is not a head-to-head. There are no confidence intervals, significance tests, or per-pair variance figures anywhere; with five datasets and several hyperparameters tuned on them, that is material. Gamma correction range, Dice threshold, rotation step, and XFeat settings are empirically determined and not given sensitivity analysis. The fine stage runs for hundreds of seconds, so the efficiency advantage is really a coarse-stage advantage. These are fixable, not fatal.

Who gets value: anyone working on multi-stain spatial pathology or WSI registration who wants a practical baseline to compare against. It is a systems paper with real engineering content, a broad benchmark footprint, and promised open code. It needs revision before acceptance—an evaluation metric that actually reports nucleus-to-nucleus correspondence, matched subsets, and some statistical reporting—but it deserves a serious referee. I would send it to peer review.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CORE, a two-stage whole-slide image (WSI) registration framework. The coarse stage combines prompt-based tissue-mask extraction (Florence-2-SAM), a morphology-based rigid alignment module (TriMorph), XFeat dense feature matching, and hierarchical non-rigid NCC optimization with smoothness regularization. The fine stage detects nuclei centroids via a morphology/watershed pipeline, performs a shape-aware point-set rigid alignment (Eqs. 4–7, Powell optimization), and then estimates local non-rigid deformations with Coherent Point Drift (CPD). The method is evaluated on ACROBAT, ANHIR, HYRECO, Multi-IHC CRC, and REACTIV AS, using TRE/rTRE-based landmarks and runtime comparisons, and the authors claim that CORE outperforms state-of-the-art methods in precision, robustness, and generalisability.

Significance. If the reported claims are substantiated, CORE would be a practically valuable contribution: the coarse stage is fast (e.g., 14.37 s on ACROBAT versus 50–120 s for published baselines), the method is tested on five cohorts spanning bright-field and immunofluorescence modalities, and open-source code plus a TiaViz demo are provided. The use of a classical, training-free nuclei detector is also attractive for data-scarce settings. However, the headline claim of 'accurate nuclei-level registration' is not directly supported by the current evaluation, which relies entirely on tissue-level landmark TRE/rTRE. The coarse-registration evidence is more credible than the fine-stage evidence; the fine-stage and 'generalises without manual tuning' claims need additional support before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (4)

[§3.2, Tables 2–6] The abstract and §3.2 claim 'precise nuclei-level correspondence across modalities' and 'cellular-level precision.' But all quantitative results in Tables 2–6 use landmark-based TRE/rTRE (§4.2), and the landmarks (e.g., 11–19 per HYRECO section, ~43 per re-stained pair) are manually placed anatomical points, not shown to coincide with nuclei centroids. A low TRE after fine registration demonstrates tissue-level alignment, not nucleus-to-nucleus correspondence. Since the fine stage is a point-set registration on nuclei centroids, the evaluation should include a direct nuclei-level metric, such as mutual-nearest-neighbour centroid precision/recall, distances between corresponding nuclei, or a cell-matching F1 score. Without such a metric, the paper's central novelty is unverified. This is separate from the acknowledged detector-dependence limitation in §4.4.
[Table 3] Table 3 reports 'Fine CORE' as having the lowest AArTRE and AMrTRE on ANHIR, but §4.3 states that fine-shape-aware registration was performed only on slides at 20×/40× magnification, while lower-resolution samples (1.25×–10×) were excluded. The baselines (DFBR, DeeperHistReg, HistokatFusion, etc.) are evaluated on the full ANHIR set. Thus the fine-stage comparison is not head-to-head: the improved global metrics could reflect case selection rather than method superiority. Please report per-subset results for CORE and all baselines on the same 20×/40× pairs, or provide a full-set fine-registration result if feasible. This is necessary to support the 'outperforms at fine registration' claim.
[Tables 2–6] No confidence intervals, standard errors, or significance tests are reported for any metric. For example, in Table 2, CORE's AMTRE90 of 139.00 µm is only 2.6 µm below HistokatFusion (141.64) and 1.3 µm below DeeperHistReg (140.33). Median/mean differences of this size may be within case-level variability. Because the abstract claims 'outperforms current state-of-the-art methods' across five datasets, the paper should provide paired statistical comparisons (e.g., bootstrap confidence intervals or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests over WSI pairs) and report the number of pairs contributing to each aggregate. The same applies to runtime comparisons, where only single means are given.
[§3.1.1–§3.1.2, Tables A.2–A.4] The introduction says the framework 'generalises across staining protocols without manual tuning,' but §3.1.1 states that gamma correction ranges (1.0–1.2 for H&E, 0.4–0.8 for IHC) were 'empirically determined based on evaluations conducted across the datasets,' and many other parameters are fixed values with no sensitivity analysis: Dice threshold 0.7, rotation step 10°, XFeat precision/iteration settings, Powell tolerance, CPD regularization parameters, and shape weight γ. Please clarify explicitly whether these were fixed a priori across all datasets or tuned per dataset. If they were tuned, the 'without manual tuning' claim should be softened; at minimum, provide a sensitivity study for the most influential parameters (e.g., γ in Eq. (5) and CPD α, β in Table A.4).

minor comments (5)

[§4.1.5] The REACTIV AS dataset reference appears as '[citation]' in the text; it should be [33].
[Table 1 vs §4.1.1] §4.1.1 states ACROBAT contains 3,406 WSIs, while Table 1 reports 4,212 WSIs. Please reconcile these numbers.
[Figure 6 caption] Figure 6 caption says source (PAS), but HYRECO stain sets are H&E, PHH3, CD8, CD45; the text describes PHH3. Please correct the caption or clarify the stain.
[Tables 4 and 6] Report the number of image pairs used for each metric, especially for the private REACTIV AS dataset (11 paired samples) and the HYRECO subsets, so that the aggregate values can be interpreted.
[§2 Related Works] A few in-text citation numbers appear inconsistent with the reference list (e.g., 'Huang et al. [13]' while [13] lists Wei et al.). Please verify all citation labels.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: accuracy claims are benchmarked externally; only minor non-load-bearing same-group citations.

full rationale

CORE is an empirical registration pipeline, not a derivation in which an output is defined as its input. The coarse stage uses externally pretrained models (Florence-2/SAM, XFeat) and standard metrics (NCC, NGF); no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The fine stage estimates a point-set transformation from detected nuclei centroids (Eqs. 4-8, CPD in Sec. 3.2.2), but the reported TRE/rTRE numbers come from manual landmarks in HYRECO, ANHIR, Multi-IHC CRC, and REACTIV AS, not from the nuclei set used in the objective, so the central evaluation is not the optimized quantity by construction. Same-group references exist ([1] review, [5] DFBR baseline and Multi-IHC CRC dataset, [20] sparse-matching efficiency, [36] TIA Viz viewer), but none is load-bearing for the headline claim; [20] only supports a computational-efficiency choice. The paper itself acknowledges the main evidence limitation in Sec. 4.4: 'the fine registration stage depends on accurate nuclei detection, which can be hindered by overlapping cells, staining artefacts, or suboptimal segmentation in dense tissue regions.' The absence of a nuclei-level quantitative metric and the fact that fine registration was not run on ACROBAT (10x slides) are evaluation gaps, not circular reductions. No equation or claimed prediction reduces by construction to the paper's own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or mathematical entities are proposed; the shape-aware distance metric is a modified loss, not an entity. The main ledger concern is that several hyperparameters, especially gamma correction and Dice threshold, were tuned on the same datasets used for evaluation. The remaining entries are ordinary algorithm assumptions and defaults.

free parameters (9)

Gamma correction range (H&E vs IHC) = 1.0–1.2 (H&E), 0.4–0.8 (IHC)
Empirically chosen in Section 3.1.1 based on evaluations across the same datasets.
Dice threshold for TriMorph acceptance = 0.7
Empirically determined in Section 3.1.2; below-threshold returns identity transform.
Rotation search step = 10 degrees
Discrete search resolution in TriMorph; coarse by design.
XFeat matching settings = precision 3–5 px; 1000–2000 iterations; 99.9% confidence
Hand-selected outlier filtering parameters for coarse feature matching.
Shape weight gamma = 0.3
Tuned on evaluation; ablation in Section 3.2.1 selects balance between spatial and morphological terms.
Powell optimization tolerance / max iterations = ε=1e-8, i_max=100
Convergence defaults in Section 3.2.1.
Coarse non-rigid parameters = lr=0.001, NCC window=7, iterations 200–500, smoothness γ_s, 6 pyramid levels
Table A.2 defaults; not derived from first principles.
CPD parameters = alpha=0.01, beta=0.5, max_iter=200, tol=1e-9, w=0.1, sigma_init=1.0, smoothing=10, max displacement=10
Table A.4 defaults for the local deformation stage.
MNN cap / progressive sample sizes = ~5000 MNNs; 500→200,000 points
Chosen for runtime; authors report accuracy stabilizes near 150,000 points.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Landmark annotations used for TRE/rTRE are accurate and correspond across stains.
All quality conclusions depend on these human landmarks; Section 4.2.
domain assumption Florence-2+SAM prompt-based segmentation yields tissue masks that exclude artifacts and include tissue.
Failure in 2–3% of WSIs is handled by a U-Net, so coarse alignment assumes one of the mask extractors works; Section 3.1.1.
domain assumption Nuclei centroids are reliable cross-modality landmarks for cell-level alignment.
Core premise of fine stage; acknowledged as a limitation in dense/overlapping regions in Section 4.4.
domain assumption XFeat features are modality-invariant enough to match H&E to IHC/PAS/mIF.
Relies on a pre-trained feature extractor; Section 3.1.2.
standard math CPD Gaussian-mixture model and smoothness regularization model tissue deformation plausibly.
Applied as an existing algorithm in Section 3.2.2.
standard math Macenko stain normalization preserves structural information needed for mask extraction.
Used in preprocessing; Section 3.1.1.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CORE -- A Cell-Level Coarse-to-Fine Image Registration Engine for Multi-stain Image Alignment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XIS7KXHV

@misc{pith2026251103826,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CORE -- A Cell-Level Coarse-to-Fine Image Registration Engine for Multi-stain Image Alignment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XIS7KXHV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.03826}
}

read the original abstract

Accurate and efficient registration of whole slide images (WSIs) is essential for high-resolution, nuclei-level analysis in multi-stained tissue slides. We propose a novel coarse-to-fine framework CORE for accurate nuclei-level registration across diverse multimodal whole-slide image (WSI) datasets. The coarse registration stage leverages prompt-based tissue mask extraction to effectively filter out artefacts and non-tissue regions, followed by global alignment using tissue morphology and accelerated dense feature matching with a pre-trained feature extractor. From the coarsely aligned slides, nuclei centroids are detected and subjected to fine-grained rigid registration using a custom, shape-aware point-set registration model. Finally, non-rigid alignment at the cellular level is achieved by estimating a non-linear displacement field using Coherent Point Drift (CPD). Our approach benefits from automatically generated nuclei that enhance the accuracy of deformable registration and ensure precise nuclei-level correspondence across modalities. The proposed model is evaluated on three publicly available WSI registration datasets, and two private datasets. We show that CORE outperforms current state-of-the-art methods in terms of generalisability, precision, and robustness in bright-field and immunofluorescence microscopy WSIs

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.03826 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** A high-level overview of the proposed WSI registration method (CORE). (A) Block shows input source and target slides. (B) The coarse registration block illustrates the overlay before transformation, the estimated (rigid+non-rigid) coarse alignment using feature matching, and the resulting coarse-registered overlay. (C) Shows the coarse registered source output and target slides. (D) Using the target and coarsely reg… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Coarse Rigid Registration Block. (A).The preprocessing and tissue mask extraction workflow applies gamma correction, stain normalisation, and prompt-based mask extraction. (B) The TriMorph block computes translation via COM (centre-of-mass) estimation, scale factor and rotation angle from input images and tissue masks. (C) XFeat block estimates semidense feature from inputs and perform rigid transform (D) Coarse N… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Proposed fine shape-aware nuclei point set registration. First coarse displacement field is applied on source WSI resulting in Coarse registered WSI. Nuclei point set are detected from Target and Coarse Registered WSI and then shape aware alignment using nuclei points is performed followed by local deform estimation. 3.2 Fine-Grained Shape-Aware Registration For local-level deformation estimation, we propose a fin… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Multi-scale visualisation of CORE results on ACROBAT dataset. Left column: Low magnification views (0.625×) of the target WSI (H&E), source WSI (IHC), and registered source WSI. Middle column: High magnification views of selected regions (indicated by green boxes) sho…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Multi-scale visualisation of CORE results on ANHIR dataset. Left column: Low magnification views (0.625×) of the target WSI (H&E), source WSI (ER), and registered source WSI. Middle column: High magnification views of selected regions (indicated by green boxes) showin…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Multi-scale visualisation of CORE results on HYRECO dataset. Left column: Low magnification views (0.625×) of the target WSI (H&E), source WSI (PAS), and registered source WSI. Middle column: High magnification views of selected regions (indicated by green boxes) show…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Multi-scale visualisation of CORE results on Multi-IHC CRC dataset. Left column: Low magnification views (0.625×) of the target WSI (CK818), source WSI (MLH1), and registered source WSI. Middle column: High magnification views of selected regions (indicated by green bo…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Multi-scale visualisation of CORE results on REACTIVAS dataset. Left column: Low magnification views (0.625×) of the target WSI (PAS), source WSI (H&E), and registered source WSI. Middle column: High magnification views of selected regions (indicated by green boxes) s…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Multi-scale visualisation of CORE results on REACTIVAS dataset. Left column: Low magnification views (0.625×) of the target WSI (mIF), source WSI (H&E), and registered source WSI. Middle column: High magnification views of selected regions (indicated by green boxes) s…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: TiaViz Visualisation tool displaying source(PHH3) and target(H&E) re-stained slides before and after registration. (Left) Target overlayed on source before alignment. (Right) Target overlayed on source after alignment. We then apply XFeat for fast and dense deep fea…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

[1]

Young, Nasir M

Behnaz Elhaminia, Abdullah Alsalemi, Esha Nasir, Mostafa Jahanifar, Ruqayya Awan, Lawrence S. Young, Nasir M. Rajpoot, Fayyaz Minhas, and Shan E Ahmed Raza. From Traditional to Deep Learning Approaches in Whole Slide Image Regis- tration: A Methodological Review, 2025. Version Number: 1

2025
[2]

Comparison of Consecutive and Re-stained Sections for Image Registration in Histopathology

Johannes Lotz, Nick Weiss, Jeroen van der Laak, and Stefan Heldmann. Comparison of Consecutive and Re-stained Sections for Image Registration in Histopathology. Journal of Medical Imaging, 10(06), November 2023. arXiv:2106.13150 [eess]

arXiv 2023
[3]

Gatenbee, Ann-Marie Baker, Sandhya Prabhakaran, Ottilie Swinyard, Robbert J

Chandler D. Gatenbee, Ann-Marie Baker, Sandhya Prabhakaran, Ottilie Swinyard, Robbert J. C. Slebos, Gunjan Mandal, Eoghan Mulholland, Noemi Andor, An- driy Marusyk, Simon Leedham, Jose R. Conejo-Garcia, Christine H. Chung, Mark Robertson-Tessi, Trevor A. Graham, and Alexander R. A. Anderson. Virtual align- ment of pathology image series for multi-gigapixe...

2023
[4]

Deeper- HistReg: Robust Whole Slide Images Registration Framework, 2024

Marek Wodzinski, Niccol` o Marini, Manfredo Atzori, and Henning M¨ uller. Deeper- HistReg: Robust Whole Slide Images Registration Framework, 2024. Version Num- ber: 1

2024
[5]

Ahmed Raza, Johannes Lotz, Nick Weiss, and Nasir Ra- jpoot

Ruqayya Awan, Shan E. Ahmed Raza, Johannes Lotz, Nick Weiss, and Nasir Ra- jpoot. Deep feature based cross-slide registration.Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics, 104:102162, March 2023

2023
[6]

J. Lotz, J. Olesch, B. Muller, T. Polzin, P. Galuschka, J. M. Lotz, S. Heldmann, H. Laue, M. Gonzalez-Vallinas, A. Warth, B. Lahrmann, N. Grabe, O. Sedlaczek, K. Breuhahn, and J. Modersitzki. Patch-Based Nonlinear Image Registration for Gigapixel Whole Slide Images.IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 63(9):1812–1819, September 2016

2016
[7]

Robust, fast and accurate: a 3-step method for automatic histological image registration, 2019

Johannes Lotz, Nick Weiss, and Stefan Heldmann. Robust, fast and accurate: a 3-step method for automatic histological image registration, 2019. Version Number: 2

2019
[8]

Sorokin, Gloria Bueno, Alexander V

Jiri Borovec, Jan Kybic, Ignacio Arganda-Carreras, Dmitry V. Sorokin, Gloria Bueno, Alexander V. Khvostikov, Spyridon Bakas, Eric I-Chao Chang, Stefan Held- mann, Kimmo Kartasalo, Leena Latonen, Johannes Lotz, Michelle Noga, Sarthak Pati, Kumaradevan Punithakumar, Pekka Ruusuvuori, Andrzej Skalski, Nazanin Tahmasebi, Masi Valkonen, Ludovic Venet, Yizhe Wa...

2020

Show all 36 references

[9]

Gatenbee, Alexander R.A

Philippe Weitz, Masi Valkonen, Leslie Solorzano, Circe Carr, Kimmo Kartasalo, Constance Boissin, Sonja Koivukoski, Aino Kuusela, Dusan Rasic, Yanbo Feng, San- dra Sinius Pouplier, Abhinav Sharma, Kajsa Ledesma Eriksson, Stephanie Robert- son, Christian Marzahl, Chandler D. Gat...

2022
[10]

Siegwart

Stefan Leutenegger, Margarita Chli, and Roland Y. Siegwart. BRISK: Binary Robust invariant scalable keypoints. In2011 International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 2548–2555, Barcelona, Spain, November 2011. IEEE

2011
[11]

A robust method for inter-marker whole slide registration of digital pathology images using lines based features

Anindya Sarkar, Quan Yuan, and Chukka Srinivas. A robust method for inter-marker whole slide registration of digital pathology images using lines based features. In2014 IEEE 11th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), pages 762–765, Beijing, April 2014. IEEE

2014
[12]

Fischler and Robert C

Martin A. Fischler and Robert C. Bolles. Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography. Communications of the ACM, 24(6):381–395, June 1981

1981
[13]

Xingyue Wei, Lin Ge, Lijie Huang, Jianwen Luo, and Yan Xu. Unsupervised Non- Rigid Histological Image Registration Guided by Keypoint Correspondences Based on Learnable Deep Features With Iterative Training.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 44(1):447–461, January 2025

2025
[14]

Pyatov and Dmitry V

Vladislav A. Pyatov and Dmitry V. Sorokin. Unsupervised Feature Matching for Affine Histological Image Registration. In Apostolos Antonacopoulos, Subhasis Chaudhuri, Rama Chellappa, Cheng-Lin Liu, Saumik Bhattacharya, and Uma- pada Pal, editors,Pattern Recognition, volume 1531...

2025
[15]

Unsupervised His- tological Image Registration Using Structural Feature Guided Convolutional Neural Network.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 41(9):2414–2431, September 2022

Lin Ge, Xingyue Wei, Yayu Hao, Jianwen Luo, and Yan Xu. Unsupervised His- tological Image Registration Using Structural Feature Guided Convolutional Neural Network.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 41(9):2414–2431, September 2022. Publisher: Institute of Electrical and Ele...

2022
[16]

SuperGlue: Learning Feature Matching With Graph Neural Networks

Paul-Edouard Sarlin, Daniel DeTone, Tomasz Malisiewicz, and Andrew Rabinovich. SuperGlue: Learning Feature Matching With Graph Neural Networks. In2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 4937–4946, Seattle, W A, USA, June 2020. IEEE

2020
[17]

Deep autoencoder features for registration of histology images

Awan R and Rajpoot N. Deep autoencoder features for registration of histology images. InAnnual Conference on Medical Image Understanding and Analysis, pages 371–378. Springer, 2018

2018
[18]

Flownet: Learning optical flow with convolutional networks

Dosovitskiy A, Fischer P, Ilg E, Hausser P, Hazirbas C, Golkov V, Van Der Smagt P, Cremers D, and Brox T. Flownet: Learning optical flow with convolutional networks. InProceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 2758–2766, 2015

2015
[19]

Registration of Histopathogy Images Using Structural Information From Fine Grained Feature Maps, 2020

Dwarikanath Mahapatra. Registration of Histopathogy Images Using Structural Information From Fine Grained Feature Maps, 2020. Version Number: 1. 29

2020
[20]

Ahmed Raza

Adith Jeyasangar, Abdullah Alsalemi, and Shan E. Ahmed Raza. Nuclei-Location Based Point Set Registration of Multi-stained Whole Slide Images. In Moi Hoon Yap, Connah Kendrick, Ardhendu Behera, Timothy Cootes, and Reyer Zwiggelaar, editors,Medical Image Understanding and Analy...

2024
[21]

HyReCo - Hybrid re-stained and consecutive histological serial sections, July 2021

Jeroen van der Laak, Johannes Lotz, Nick Weiss, and Stefan Heldmann. HyReCo - Hybrid re-stained and consecutive histological serial sections, July 2021

2021
[22]

Multimodal Alignment of Histopathological Images Using Cell Segmentation and Point Set Matching for Integrative Cancer Analysis, 2024

Jun Jiang, Raymond Moore, Brenna Novotny, Leo Liu, Zachary Fogarty, Ray Guo, Markovic Svetomir, and Chen Wang. Multimodal Alignment of Histopathological Images Using Cell Segmentation and Point Set Matching for Integrative Cancer Analysis, 2024. Version Number: 1

2024
[23]

Source data for V ALIS: Virtual Alignment of pathoLogy Image Series for multi-gigapixel whole slide images publication, May 2023

Chandler Gatenbee. Source data for V ALIS: Virtual Alignment of pathoLogy Image Series for multi-gigapixel whole slide images publication, May 2023

2023
[24]

Green, Margaret Eminizer, Daniel Jimenez-Sanchez, Steve Lu, Elizabeth L

Joshua Doyle, Benjamin F. Green, Margaret Eminizer, Daniel Jimenez-Sanchez, Steve Lu, Elizabeth L. Engle, Haiying Xu, Aleksandra Ogurtsova, Jonathan Lai, Sigfredo Soto-Diaz, Jeffrey S. Roskes, Julie S. Deutsch, Janis M. Taube, Joel C. Sunshine, and Alexander S. Szalay. Whole-S...

2023
[25]

Marc Macenko, Marc Niethammer, J. S. Marron, David Borland, John T. Woosley, Xiaojun Guan, Charles Schmitt, and Nancy E. Thomas. A method for normalizing histology slides for quantitative analysis. In2009 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro, ...

2009
[26]

Florence-2: Advancing a Unified Representation for a Variety of Vision Tasks, 2023

Bin Xiao, Haiping Wu, Weijian Xu, Xiyang Dai, Houdong Hu, Yumao Lu, Michael Zeng, Ce Liu, and Lu Yuan. Florence-2: Advancing a Unified Representation for a Variety of Vision Tasks, 2023. Version Number: 1

2023
[27]

Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, Piotr Doll´ ar, and Ross Girshick

Alexander Kirillov, Eric Mintun, Nikhila Ravi, Hanzi Mao, Chloe Rolland, Laura Gustafson, Tete Xiao, Spencer Whitehead, Alexander C. Berg, Wan-Yen Lo, Piotr Doll´ ar, and Ross Girshick. Segment Anything, April 2023. arXiv:2304.02643 [cs]

2023 arXiv
[28]

Nascimento

Guilherme Potje, Felipe Cadar, Andre Araujo, Renato Martins, and Erickson R. Nascimento. XFeat: Accelerated Features for Lightweight Image Matching, 2024. Version Number: 1

2024
[29]

Avants, Nicholas J

Brian B. Avants, Nicholas J. Tustison, Gang Song, Philip A. Cook, Arno Klein, and James C. Gee. A reproducible evaluation of ANTs similarity metric performance in brain image registration.NeuroImage, 54(3):2033–2044, February 2011. Publisher: Elsevier BV
[30]

Sabuncu, John Guttag, and Adrian V

Guha Balakrishnan, Amy Zhao, Mert R. Sabuncu, John Guttag, and Adrian V. Dalca. VoxelMorph: A Learning Framework for Deformable Medical Image Regis- tration. 2018. Publisher: arXiv Version Number: 3. 30

2018
[31]

Fessler, Michael Roberson, James Balter, and Marc Kessler

Dan Ruan, Jeffrey A. Fessler, Michael Roberson, James Balter, and Marc Kessler. Nonrigid registration using regularization that accomodates local tissue rigidity. In Joseph M. Reinhardt and Josien P. W. Pluim, editors,SPIE Proceedings, volume 6144, page 614412, San Diego, CA, ...

2006
[32]

Point Set Registration: Coherent Point Drift

Andriy Myronenko and Xubo Song. Point Set Registration: Coherent Point Drift. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 32(12):2262–2275, December 2010. Publisher: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)

2010
[33]

Study details: Nct04916704 — subclinical cytomegalovirus reac- tivation in acute anca-associated vasculitis.https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/ NCT04916704, 2024

ClinicalTrials.gov. Study details: Nct04916704 — subclinical cytomegalovirus reac- tivation in acute anca-associated vasculitis.https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/ NCT04916704, 2024. Accessed: 2024-01-01

2024
[34]

Multistep, automatic and nonrigid image registration method for histology samples acquired using multiple stains.Physics in Medicine & Biology, November 2020

Marek Wodzinski and Andrzej Skalski. Multistep, automatic and nonrigid image registration method for histology samples acquired using multiple stains.Physics in Medicine & Biology, November 2020

2020
[35]

Marek Wodzinski, Niccol` o Marini, Manfredo Atzori, and Henning M¨ uller. RegWSI: Whole slide image registration using combined deep feature- and intensity-based methods: Winner of the ACROBAT 2023 challenge.Computer Methods and Pro- grams in Biomedicine, 250:108187, June 2024

2023
[36]

Rajpoot, and Shan E Ahmed Raza

Johnathan Pocock, Simon Graham, Quoc Dang Vu, Mostafa Jahanifar, Srijay Desh- pande, Giorgos Hadjigeorghiou, Adam Shephard, Raja Muhammad Saad Bashir, Mohsin Bilal, Wenqi Lu, David Epstein, Fayyaz Minhas, Nasir M. Rajpoot, and Shan E Ahmed Raza. TIAToolbox as an end-to-end lib...

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Young, Nasir M

Behnaz Elhaminia, Abdullah Alsalemi, Esha Nasir, Mostafa Jahanifar, Ruqayya Awan, Lawrence S. Young, Nasir M. Rajpoot, Fayyaz Minhas, and Shan E Ahmed Raza. From Traditional to Deep Learning Approaches in Whole Slide Image Regis- tration: A Methodological Review, 2025. Version Number: 1

2025

[2] [2]

Comparison of Consecutive and Re-stained Sections for Image Registration in Histopathology

Johannes Lotz, Nick Weiss, Jeroen van der Laak, and Stefan Heldmann. Comparison of Consecutive and Re-stained Sections for Image Registration in Histopathology. Journal of Medical Imaging, 10(06), November 2023. arXiv:2106.13150 [eess]

arXiv 2023

[3] [3]

Gatenbee, Ann-Marie Baker, Sandhya Prabhakaran, Ottilie Swinyard, Robbert J

Chandler D. Gatenbee, Ann-Marie Baker, Sandhya Prabhakaran, Ottilie Swinyard, Robbert J. C. Slebos, Gunjan Mandal, Eoghan Mulholland, Noemi Andor, An- driy Marusyk, Simon Leedham, Jose R. Conejo-Garcia, Christine H. Chung, Mark Robertson-Tessi, Trevor A. Graham, and Alexander R. A. Anderson. Virtual align- ment of pathology image series for multi-gigapixe...

2023

[4] [4]

Deeper- HistReg: Robust Whole Slide Images Registration Framework, 2024

Marek Wodzinski, Niccol` o Marini, Manfredo Atzori, and Henning M¨ uller. Deeper- HistReg: Robust Whole Slide Images Registration Framework, 2024. Version Num- ber: 1

2024

[5] [5]

Ahmed Raza, Johannes Lotz, Nick Weiss, and Nasir Ra- jpoot

Ruqayya Awan, Shan E. Ahmed Raza, Johannes Lotz, Nick Weiss, and Nasir Ra- jpoot. Deep feature based cross-slide registration.Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics, 104:102162, March 2023

2023

[6] [6]

J. Lotz, J. Olesch, B. Muller, T. Polzin, P. Galuschka, J. M. Lotz, S. Heldmann, H. Laue, M. Gonzalez-Vallinas, A. Warth, B. Lahrmann, N. Grabe, O. Sedlaczek, K. Breuhahn, and J. Modersitzki. Patch-Based Nonlinear Image Registration for Gigapixel Whole Slide Images.IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 63(9):1812–1819, September 2016

2016

[7] [7]

Robust, fast and accurate: a 3-step method for automatic histological image registration, 2019

Johannes Lotz, Nick Weiss, and Stefan Heldmann. Robust, fast and accurate: a 3-step method for automatic histological image registration, 2019. Version Number: 2

2019

[8] [8]

Sorokin, Gloria Bueno, Alexander V

Jiri Borovec, Jan Kybic, Ignacio Arganda-Carreras, Dmitry V. Sorokin, Gloria Bueno, Alexander V. Khvostikov, Spyridon Bakas, Eric I-Chao Chang, Stefan Held- mann, Kimmo Kartasalo, Leena Latonen, Johannes Lotz, Michelle Noga, Sarthak Pati, Kumaradevan Punithakumar, Pekka Ruusuvuori, Andrzej Skalski, Nazanin Tahmasebi, Masi Valkonen, Ludovic Venet, Yizhe Wa...

2020