571 update paired mr-us prostate demo

[YipengHu]

Description

Update the pretrained model for Paired prostate MR-ultrasound registration demo, together with the relevant config files and train/predict scripts.

Fixes #<issue_number>

Type of change

What types of changes does your code introduce to DeepReg?

Please check the boxes that apply after submitting the pull request.

• Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• Code style update (formatting, renaming)
• Refactoring (no functional changes, no api changes)
• Documentation Update (fix or improvement on the documentation)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Other (if none of the other choices apply)

Checklist

Please check the boxes that apply after submitting the pull request.

If you're unsure about any of them, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! This is
simply a reminder of what we are going to look for before merging your code.

• I have
  installed pre-commit
  using pre-commit install and formatted all changed files. If you are not
  certain, run pre-commit run --all-files.
• My commits' message styles matches
  our requested structure,
  e.g. Issue #<issue number>: detailed message.
• I have updated the
  change log file
  regarding my changes.
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• I have added necessary documentation (if appropriate)

[mathpluscode]

Do you have any stats result showing the updated ckpt is better? predict script should give some metrics. @YipengHu

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #582 (e46442b) into main (1b28d49) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #582   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   99.23%   99.23%           
=======================================
  Files          33       33           
  Lines        1968     1968           
=======================================
  Hits         1953     1953           
  Misses         15       15           

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 1b28d49...e46442b. Read the comment docs.

[YipengHu]

This is largely an update of pre-trained model. @s-sd you should be able to find a good example of visuals from this. #474 #565

[mathpluscode]

another question is about how good do we want, for these models, as i guess the image size is still too small

[YipengHu]

another question is about how good do we want, for these models, as i guess the image size is still too small

Good question - i'm digging out the old stats. This one is easier, we do have a good stats. For others, the improvement will be solely qualitative - but i think it would be obvious.

[mathpluscode]

another question is about how good do we want, for these models, as i guess the image size is still too small

Good question - i'm digging out the old stats. This one is easier, we do have a good stats. For others, the improvement will be solely qualitative - but i think it would be obvious.

yup, when dealing with the loading bug, we were comparing the stats and we considered 0.2 -> 0.6 in terms of dice means some improvement ^^

[YipengHu]

another question is about how good do we want, for these models, as i guess the image size is still too small

Good question - i'm digging out the old stats. This one is easier, we do have a good stats. For others, the improvement will be solely qualitative - but i think it would be obvious.

yup, when dealing with the loading bug, we were comparing the stats and we considered 0.2 -> 0.6 in terms of dice means some improvement ^^

the numerical improvement was small for this case: dice on gland 067 -> 0.69 and probably not significant. I'd be reluctant to put more effort in this case though, considering the dummy data set.

[mathpluscode]

another question is about how good do we want, for these models, as i guess the image size is still too small

Good question - i'm digging out the old stats. This one is easier, we do have a good stats. For others, the improvement will be solely qualitative - but i think it would be obvious.

yup, when dealing with the loading bug, we were comparing the stats and we considered 0.2 -> 0.6 in terms of dice means some improvement ^^

the numerical improvement was small for this case: dice on gland 067 -> 0.69 and probably not significant. I'd be reluctant to put more effort in this case though, considering the dummy data set.

which demo you mean, the prostate one? bcz you changed 3 files for paired prostate, plus 1 file for masked prostate.

[NMontanaBrown]

Hi @YipengHu @mathpluscode @s-sd, just catching up on new changes - appreciate the work that's going in to improve demos. However, changelog has not been updated, nor was the PR template used correctly - could we ensure as reviewers/PR submitters that we use it appropriately?

[mathpluscode]

Hi @YipengHu @mathpluscode @s-sd, just catching up on new changes - appreciate the work that's going in to improve demos. However, changelog has not been updated, nor was the PR template used correctly - could we ensure as reviewers/PR submitters that we use it appropriately?

nice point.... maybe we can find a way to have the check automatically.

[YipengHu]

Hi @YipengHu @mathpluscode @s-sd, just catching up on new changes - appreciate the work that's going in to improve demos. However, changelog has not been updated, nor was the PR template used correctly - could we ensure as reviewers/PR submitters that we use it appropriately?

nice point.... maybe we can find a way to have the check automatically.

good point indeed - will add.