[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-detail-85964-en":3,"doc-seo-85964-105":30,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":92},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",{"doc_id":7,"user_id":8,"nickname":9,"user_avatar":10,"doc_module":4,"category_id":11,"category_name":12,"doc_title":13,"doc_description":14,"doc_content":15,"file_id":16,"file_url":17,"file_type":18,"file_size":19,"view_count":20,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":21,"is_downloadable":21,"audit_status":21,"page_count":22,"language":23,"language_code":24,"site_id":25,"html_lang":24,"table_of_contents":26,"faqs":27,"seo_title":13,"seo_description":14,"update_tm":28,"read_time":29},85964,13056703019404,"Miles","https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_29158cc5080c5b710cf443261637dec0",8,"Research & Report","Projection-Domain Sensitivity Analysis of Vertebral DRRs Under Intrinsic Calibration Perturbation","Accurate geometric calibration underpins fluoroscopy-guided spinal imaging, digitally reconstructed radiograph (DRR) generation, and 2D–3D vertebral registration, yet calibration uncertainty’s effect on projection-domain consistency is not well characterized. This preprint introduces a synthetic framework that perturbs intrinsic calibration while keeping anatomy and acquisition pose fixed, generating DRRs from CT-derived vertebral models. It quantifies sensitivity using landmark displacement, contour and silhouette metrics, image similarity, and registration accuracy, revealing view-dependent changes and propagated downstream registration error, especially for rotational alignment.","arXiv :2607 . 10551v1 [ ee ss .IV] 12 Jul 2026  \nPROJECTION-DOMAIN SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF VERTEBRAL DRRS UNDER INTRINSIC CALIBRATION PERTURBATION  \nA PREPRINT  \nLin Li * 1 , Chaochao Zhou2 , Benjamin Aubert3 , Junlin Guo4 , and Junchao Zhu5  \n1Department of Mathematics, Tulane University  \n2Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign  \n3EOS, EOS Imaging Inc.  \n4Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Vanderbilt University  \n5Department of Computer Science, Vanderbilt University  \nJuly 14, 2026  \nABSTRACT  \nAccurate geometric calibration is a fundamental requirement for fluoroscopy-guided spinal imaging, digitally reconstructed radiograph (DRR) generation, and 2D–3D vertebral registration. While calibration quality is traditionally evaluated using reconstruction-domain metrics such as reprojection error and reconstruction accuracy, the impact of calibration uncertainty on projection-domain consistency remains insufficiently understood. In this work, projection-domain consistency refers to the stability of DRR projection appearance, projected anatomical geometry, and downstream 2D–3D registration performance under changes in calibration parameters.  \nThis paper presents a synthetic framework for analyzing the sensitivity of vertebral fluoroscopic projections to intrinsic calibration perturbations. Using CT-derived vertebral models and controlled cone-beam imaging geometry, DRRs are generated under both ground-truth and perturbed intrinsic calibration parameters while maintaining fixed anatomy and acquisition pose. Projection-domain effects are quantified using anatomical landmark displacement, contour-based distance measures, silhouette overlap metrics, image similarity analysis, and landmark-based 2D–3D registration accuracy in both anterior–posterior (AP) and lateral (LAT) views.  \nExperimental results demonstrate that relatively small intrinsic calibration perturbations can produce measurable changes in vertebral projection geometry, contour morphology, landmark localization, and DRR appearance despite unchanged anatomy and imaging pose. Sensitivity is strongly view dependent, with LAT projections exhibiting substantially greater contour deformation, silhouette degradation, and anatomical displacement than AP projections. Furthermore, synthetic 2D–3D registration experiments show that projection inconsistencies induced by intrinsic calibration perturbations propagate to downstream registration error, particularly in rotational alignment accuracy.  \nThese findings highlight the limitations of relying solely on reconstruction-based calibration evaluation and demonstrate that projection-domain consistency provides complementary information relevant to DRR generation and fluoroscopy-guided registration. The proposed framework offers a controlled methodology for characterizing geometric sensitivity and calibration robustness in vertebral imaging systems.  \nKeywords 2D–3D registration, fluoroscopy, C-arm calibration, digitally reconstructed radiographs, vertebral imaging, projection-domain analysis, calibration sensitivity  \n∗ Corresponding author: [lli15@tulane.edu](lli15@tulane.edu)  \n1 Introduction  \nFluoroscopy-guided 2D–3D registration plays an increasingly important role in spine surgery, robotic navigation, image-guided intervention, and intraoperative localization. By aligning preoperative CT data with intraoperative fluoroscopic images, these systems enable vertebral localization, surgical guidance, implant placement, and navigation with improved accuracy. Central to the success of these workflows is accurate imaging geometry calibration, which directly affects DRR generation, projection fidelity, and registration performance.  \nMost calibration methodologies evaluate geometric accuracy using reconstruction-domain measures such as reprojection error, triangulation accuracy, or volumetric reconstruction quality. Low reconstruction error is often interpreted as evidence that the estima","cbCaibMzY15XQmUG","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaibMzY15XQmUG","pdf",4186221,5,1,20,"English","en",105,"# Abstract\n# Introduction\n# Materials and Methods\n## Synthetic DRR Generation Framework\n## Intrinsic Calibration Perturbations and Fixed Pose\n## Projection-Domain Evaluation Metrics\n# Experimental Results\n## Projection Geometry, Contours, and Silhouette Effects\n## Landmark Localization Changes\n## Impact on 2D–3D Registration Accuracy","[{\"question\":\"What does “projection-domain consistency” mean in this work?\",\"answer\":\"It describes the stability of DRR appearance, projected anatomical geometry, and downstream 2D–3D registration performance when calibration parameters change.\"},{\"question\":\"How is the intrinsic calibration perturbation studied while keeping experiments controlled?\",\"answer\":\"The method generates DRRs using CT-derived vertebral models under ground-truth and perturbed intrinsic parameters while maintaining fixed anatomy and acquisition pose.\"},{\"question\":\"Why are the results described as view dependent?\",\"answer\":\"Sensitivity varies by view: lateral (LAT) projections show substantially greater contour deformation, silhouette degradation, and anatomical displacement than anterior–posterior (AP) projections.\"}]",1784207418,50,{"code":4,"msg":31,"data":32},"ok",{"site_id":25,"language":24,"slug":33,"title":13,"keywords":34,"description":14,"schema_data":35,"social_meta":87,"head_meta":89,"extra_data":91,"updated_unix":28},"projection-domain-sensitivity-analysis-of-vertebral-drrs-under-intrinsic-calibration-perturbation","",{"@graph":36,"@context":86},[37,54,69],{"@type":38,"itemListElement":39},"BreadcrumbList",[40,44,48,51],{"item":41,"name":42,"@type":43,"position":21},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":45,"name":46,"@type":43,"position":47},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":49,"name":12,"@type":43,"position":50},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":52,"name":13,"@type":43,"position":53},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/projection-domain-sensitivity-analysis-of-vertebral-drrs-under-intrinsic-calibration-perturbation/85964/",4,{"url":52,"name":13,"@type":55,"author":56,"headline":13,"publisher":58,"fileFormat":61,"inLanguage":24,"description":14,"dateModified":62,"datePublished":63,"encodingFormat":61,"isAccessibleForFree":64,"interactionStatistic":65},"DigitalDocument",{"name":9,"@type":57},"Person",{"url":41,"name":59,"@type":60},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-07-25","2026-07-16",true,{"@type":66,"interactionType":67,"userInteractionCount":20},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":68},"ViewAction",{"@type":70,"mainEntity":71},"FAQPage",[72,78,82],{"name":73,"@type":74,"acceptedAnswer":75},"What does “projection-domain consistency” mean in this work?","Question",{"text":76,"@type":77},"It describes the stability of DRR appearance, projected anatomical geometry, and downstream 2D–3D registration performance when calibration parameters change.","Answer",{"name":79,"@type":74,"acceptedAnswer":80},"How is the intrinsic calibration perturbation studied while keeping experiments controlled?",{"text":81,"@type":77},"The method generates DRRs using CT-derived vertebral models under ground-truth and perturbed intrinsic parameters while maintaining fixed anatomy and acquisition pose.",{"name":83,"@type":74,"acceptedAnswer":84},"Why are the results described as view dependent?",{"text":85,"@type":77},"Sensitivity varies by view: lateral (LAT) projections show substantially greater contour deformation, silhouette degradation, and anatomical displacement than anterior–posterior (AP) projections.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":52,"og:type":88,"og:title":13,"og:site_name":59,"og:description":14},"article",{"robots":90,"canonical":52},"index,follow",{"doc_id":7,"site_id":25},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":93},[94,98,102,106,110,114,119,122,126,129,133],{"id":21,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":95,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":97},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":47,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":99,"show_sort_weight":100,"slug":101},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":53,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":20,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":112,"show_sort_weight":29,"slug":113},6,"Technology","technology",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":11,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":12,"show_sort_weight":120,"slug":121},30,"research-report",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":125},9,"Religion & Spirituality","religion-spirituality",{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":127,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":128},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":130,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":131,"show_sort_weight":130,"slug":132},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":134,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":46,"category_name":135,"show_sort_weight":20,"slug":136},19,"General","general"]