{ "id": "epaycvs8tc", "slug": "computed-tomography-magnetic-resonance-imaging-fusion", "title": "Computed tomography–magnetic resonance imaging fusion", "updated": "2026-10-25", "topic_path": [ { "id": "life", "label": "Life and health", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/topics/life" }, { "id": "life.health", "label": "Human health and medicine", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/topics/life.health" }, { "id": "life.health.clinical", "label": "Clinical assessment and procedures", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/topics/life.health.clinical" }, { "id": "life.health.clinical.clinical-imaging", "label": "Medical imaging and radiography", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/topics/life.health.clinical.clinical-imaging" }, { "id": "life.health.clinical.clinical-imaging.image-analysis-and-quantitative-imaging", "label": "Image analysis and quantitative imaging", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/topics/life.health.clinical.clinical-imaging.image-analysis-and-quantitative-imaging" } ], "geo": [ { "id": "geo.nongeo.t1946.life.health.clinical.clinical-imaging", "label": "Non-geographic · 1946 to 2000: Medical imaging and radiography", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1946.life.health.clinical.clinical-imaging", "path": [ { "id": "geo.nongeo", "label": "Non-geographic", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo" }, { "id": "geo.nongeo.t1946", "label": "Non-geographic · 1946 to 2000", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1946" }, { "id": "geo.nongeo.t1946.life", "label": "Life and health", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1946.life" }, { "id": "geo.nongeo.t1946.life.health", "label": "Human health and medicine", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1946.life.health" }, { "id": "geo.nongeo.t1946.life.health.clinical", "label": "Clinical assessment and procedures", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1946.life.health.clinical" }, { "id": "geo.nongeo.t1946.life.health.clinical.clinical-imaging", "label": "Medical imaging and radiography", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1946.life.health.clinical.clinical-imaging" } ] } ], "excerpt": "Computed tomography–magnetic resonance imaging (CT–MRI) fusion aligns CT and MRI scans of the same patient into a single image, combining bone detail with soft-tissue contrast.", "snippet": "Computed tomography–magnetic resonance imaging (CT–MRI) fusion aligns CT and MRI scans of the same patient into a single image, combining bone detail with soft-tissue contrast.", "node": "life.health.clinical.clinical-imaging.image-analysis-and-quantitative-imaging", "markdown": "# Computed tomography–magnetic resonance imaging fusion\n\nComputed tomography–magnetic resonance imaging (CT–MRI) fusion is an imaging technique that spatially aligns CT and MRI data sets of the same patient and displays them as a single image. Registration is the step that aligns the two data sets spatially; fusion is the step that overlays them and visualizes them as one image.[1](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2850071/) The purpose is to combine complementary information: CT provides dense bone detail and geometrically stable coordinates, while MRI provides soft-tissue contrast that CT lacks. A fused image lets a clinician localize an MRI-visible target within CT-defined anatomy, answering questions such as where a tumor sits relative to bone, or where a stereotactic trajectory should pass. MRI/CT is the most-studied and most open-source multimodal fusion combination.[2](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2020/8279342)\n\n| Key fact | Value |\n|---|---|\n| Definition | Registration aligns two data sets; fusion overlays and visualizes them as one image[1](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2850071/) |\n| Early landmark-based accuracy | Within 1.5 mm for skull base CT–MR registration (1991)[3](https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-64-767-1030) |\n| Typical evaluated accuracy | Average errors of 0.4–2 mm for CT–MRI registration algorithms on phantom or patient data[4](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/oncology/articles/10.3389/fonc.2020.614008/full) |\n| Registration time | 3–5 min for automated voxel-similarity registration on cropped volumes; 10–20 min for semi-manual landmark methods without cropping[1](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2850071/) |\n| Leading similarity measure | Mutual information, usually normalized mutual information, for inter-modality registration[5](https://www.hug.ch/sites/interhug/files/structures/pinlab/documents/PETClin2008clinical.pdf) |\n| Gamma Knife phantom error | Mean maximum absolute errors of 0.38, 0.62, and 0.93 mm fused versus 0.43, 1.53, and 2.02 mm for MR alone[6](https://reference-global.com/download/article/10.2478/v10013-010-0006-8.pdf) |\n| MR stereotactic error | Systematic error in MR coordinates with a median of 4 mm versus CT, motivating fusion[7](https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1995.83.2.0271) |\n\n## How it works\n\nTwo image domains are made commensurable by placing both in a common coordinate space and finding a transformation that maps one onto the other. A rigid transformation has 6 degrees of freedom (3 rotations and 3 translations); an [affine transformation](https://www.edgepedia.org/affine-transformation) has up to 12 degrees of freedom, adding 3 scale and 3 skew parameters; elastic models such as thin-plate splines allow local deformation.[1](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2850071/)\n\nTwo registration strategies dominate. Landmark-based methods identify corresponding point-like anatomical features in both modalities and fit a transformation; for corresponding 3-D point sets, a closed-form least-squares solution gives the optimal rigid-body fit.[3](https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-64-767-1030) Voxel-based methods instead optimize an intensity-based similarity measure over the whole image. Because CT and MRI intensities are not linearly related, information-theoretic measures are used: maximization of mutual information, maximization of the correlation ratio, or minimization of histogram dispersion, with mutual information and its normalized variant the most widely used criteria for inter-modality registration.[5](https://www.hug.ch/sites/interhug/files/structures/pinlab/documents/PETClin2008clinical.pdf) The correlation ratio can be used for inter-modality registration, while cross-correlation is generally more suitable for registering same-modality data sets.[1](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2850071/)\n\n## How it is done\n\nA practitioner acquires both data sets with compatible, DICOM-connected protocols, since software fusion depends on connectivity, compatible scanning parameters, and interdepartmental collaboration.[5](https://www.hug.ch/sites/interhug/files/structures/pinlab/documents/PETClin2008clinical.pdf) Registration then proceeds either by user-identified landmarks or by an automated voxel-similarity algorithm. In one reported workflow, semi-manual landmark methods (least squares, thin-plate splines) required about 10–20 minutes of setup without cropping, while automated affine registration applied to cropped volumes took 3–5 minutes, fast enough for fusion during treatment.[1](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2850071/) Cropping also improved affine registration performance.\n\nThe registered data are then displayed. Early validated implementations offered adjacent slices, a single fused slice representation, color overlay, and 3-D rendered scenes.[8](https://europepmc.org/article/MED/8306310) Most clinically employed multimodal fusion today remains limited to rigid registration followed by manual switching between data sets or a straightforward overlay, such as a semi-transparent color representation superimposed on a grayscale image.[9](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10704723/) Visual validation of the result remains essential: humans can detect transformations of at least 1 mm and 1 degree, and retrospective registrations can occasionally fail badly.[4](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/oncology/articles/10.3389/fonc.2020.614008/full)\n\n## Origin\n\nSurface-based multimodal registration predates routine CT–MRI fusion: Charles A. Pelizzari and colleagues reported accurate three-dimensional registration of CT, PET, and/or MR images of the brain in the Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography in 1989.[10](https://doi.org/10.1097/00004728-198901000-00004) A CT–MR registration technique for skull base surgical planning is based on user-identified point-like landmarks, accurate to within 1.5 mm in preliminary evaluation.[3](https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-64-767-1030) A validated combination method followed in Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics in July 1993, in clinical use for skull base surgery and nasopharyngeal tumor therapy planning.[8](https://europepmc.org/article/MED/8306310) Automatic edge-based correlation came from Marcel van Herk and Hanne M. Kooy, who applied chamfer matching to CT–CT, CT–MRI, and CT–SPECT correlation in Medical Physics in 1994,[11](https://doi.org/10.1118/1.597344) building on G. Borgefors's hierarchical chamfer matching algorithm of 1988.[12](https://doi.org/10.1109/34.9107) Paul F. Hemler and colleagues described a versatile system for multimodality image fusion in the Journal of Image Guided Surgery in 1995.[13](https://doi.org/10.1002/%28sici%291522-712x%281995%291:1<35::aid-igs6>3.0.co;2-n) F. Maes and colleagues published multimodality registration by maximization of mutual information in IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging in 1997, the principle behind the automatic fusion in BrainLAB iPlan CMF.[14](https://doi.org/10.1109/42.563664) The Vanderbilt multi-site retrospective evaluation compared surface-based with volume-based methods against fiducial-marker gold standards, defining fiducial registration error as the root-mean-square distance between corresponding fiducials after registration, and concluded that visual inspection is necessary to guard against large errors, with some maximum observed errors of 6.3 to 9.9 mm.\n\n## Variants\n\nPlatforms differ mainly in registration algorithm and rigidity. MIPAV (NIH) offers landmark-based least-squares rigid, landmark-based thin-plate spline elastic, and automatic voxel-similarity affine registration.[1](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2850071/) Leksell GammaPlan uses a Normalized Mutual Information algorithm for co-registration.[6](https://reference-global.com/download/article/10.2478/v10013-010-0006-8.pdf) BrainLAB iPlan CMF performs automatic fusion by maximization of mutual information.[15](https://bmcoralhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12903-022-02679-0) [Radiosurgery](https://www.edgepedia.org/radiosurgery) workflows on MultiPlan (Accuray) combine point-based registration using 3–4 anatomical points, intensity-based registration, and manual correction; other installations use Virtual Place Plus (AZE Ltd.) and Merge View (Philips) workstations.[16](https://www.cureus.com/articles/2820-image-fusion-for-radiosurgery-neurosurgery-and-hypofractionated-radiotherapy) Rigid registration with FSL FLIRT, using normalized mutual information with 128 histogram bins, is a common preprocessing step for research fusion.[9](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10704723/)\n\nDeformable deep-learning registration is the main recent variant. The JSR joint synthesis-and-registration network for deformable MR-CBCT registration, reported by R Han and colleagues in Physics in Medicine and Biology in 2022, achieved median target registration error of 1.94 mm in simulation and 2.05 mm on clinical data in under 3 seconds, outperforming SyN and VoxelMorph.[17](https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ac72ef) Generative fusion networks now produce a single image retaining CT bone structure and MRI soft-tissue contrast: MedFusionGAN fuses CT and T1-Gd MRI in 1.9 seconds,[9](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10704723/) and DTMFusion performs joint registration and fusion of misaligned images end to end.[18](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031320325010349)\n\n## Applications\n\nIn skull base and stereotactic neurosurgery, fusion combines MR anatomical definition with the geometric precision of CT; a chamfer-matching fusion technique was reported after finding systematic error in MR stereotactic coordinates with a median of 4 mm compared to CT.[7](https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1995.83.2.0271) In Gamma Knife radiosurgery, fused CT-MR images reduced stereotactic coordinate errors relative to MR alone in phantom studies.[6](https://reference-global.com/download/article/10.2478/v10013-010-0006-8.pdf) In deep brain stimulation planning, automated CT-MRI co-registration with FrameLink software produced an average error of 1.25 mm across 22 patients.[19](https://karger.com/sfn/article/99/3/196/293976/CT-and-MRI-Image-Fusion-Error-An-Analysis-of-Co) Fusion of heavy T2 (CISS) MR images with thin-sliced CT evaluates cranial nerves within bony structures, and fusion with CT can correct MR image distortion.[16](https://www.cureus.com/articles/2820-image-fusion-for-radiosurgery-neurosurgery-and-hypofractionated-radiotherapy) In oral and maxillofacial tumor imaging, 93 multimodal fusions in iPlan CMF 3.0 showed mean deviations of 1.926–2.788 mm depending on algorithm.[15](https://bmcoralhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12903-022-02679-0) In radiotherapy, fusion supports target delineation and, in interventional practice, multimodality fusion-guided procedures; Nadine Abi-Jaoudeh and colleagues reviewed the technique, accuracy, and applications in CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology in 2012.[20](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-012-0446-5) Coregistered subtraction SPECT onto MR imaging (SISCOM) has reported a predictive value up to 97% for correct localization of an epileptic focus.[5](https://www.hug.ch/sites/interhug/files/structures/pinlab/documents/PETClin2008clinical.pdf)\n\nEvaluated CT-MRI and trimodality registration algorithms achieve average errors between 0.4 and 2 mm on phantom or patient data.[4](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/oncology/articles/10.3389/fonc.2020.614008/full) Published results cluster accordingly: 1.25 mm for DBS co-registration,[19](https://karger.com/sfn/article/99/3/196/293976/CT-and-MRI-Image-Fusion-Error-An-Analysis-of-Co) and sub-millimeter Gamma Knife phantom errors (mean maximum absolute errors of 0.38, 0.62, and 0.93 mm along x, y, and z, versus 0.43, 1.53, and 2.02 mm for MR alone).[6](https://reference-global.com/download/article/10.2478/v10013-010-0006-8.pdf) The picture is not uniform: the oral and maxillofacial study found mean deviations of 1.926–2.788 mm by algorithm, exceeding 2 mm for some algorithms, and found that thinner slice thickness significantly improved accuracy while pixel pitch did not.[15](https://bmcoralhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12903-022-02679-0) Accuracy therefore depends on modality pair, algorithm, and image acquisition, not on fusion in general.\n\n## Limitations and alternatives\n\nFusion accuracy degrades with organ shift, respiratory variation, lesion or organ shrinkage, and positional changes between scans; elastic methods alter the actual imaging data and carry potential for error.[1](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2850071/) Nonrigid registration is usually required in the thorax and abdomen because of breathing differences and organ motion.[5](https://www.hug.ch/sites/interhug/files/structures/pinlab/documents/PETClin2008clinical.pdf) MRI adds its own error sources: geometric distortions related to the system or the patient can alter registration, and dental artifacts can alter CT registration.[4](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/oncology/articles/10.3389/fonc.2020.614008/full) Errors also compound: for chained fusions the total error is the root mean square of the component errors, so the minimum necessary number of fusions is advocated; in one Novalis phantom study, autofusion inaccuracy (0.41 ± 0.30 mm) exceeded MRI geometrical inaccuracy (0.22 ± 0.1 mm), making the fusion process itself an error source.[21](https://surgicalneurologyint.com/article/image-fusion-pitfalls-for-cranial-radiosurgery) In deep-learning registration, increased volumetric overlap can come with more local deformation folding, indicating reduced topological regularity.[22](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-026-55496-8)\n\n**Alternatives.** MRI-only radiotherapy with synthetic CT removes the registration step that transfers MRI-delineated structures to CT, an error reported in the order of 2–5 mm for various treatment sites; sCT dosimetric agreement with CT-based calculation is in the order of 0.3–2.5%.[23](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13014-016-0747-y) One sCT workflow avoids multimodal deformable registration entirely by using one initial CT and daily MRIs with intramodal registration only, achieving median MAE of 37.0 HU.[24](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6560/aa5200) Simultaneous PET/MRI avoids sequential-acquisition misregistration: PET/MRI T1-weighted gradient-echo and T2-weighted images showed more accurate spatial registration than PET/CT, attributed to simultaneous acquisition, though EPI-based diffusion data were significantly misregistered, especially in the thorax.[25](https://www.ajronline.org/doi/10.2214/AJR.13.11305) PET/MRI remains limited in capacity and workflow: approximately 30 systems in the United States versus about 1600 PET/CT systems, studies that may exceed an hour versus usually under 30 minutes for PET/CT, and Dixon-based attenuation correction that disregards bone, underestimating SUV near bony structures.[26](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmri.25711) No medical device allows simultaneous acquisition of CT, MRI, and PET, so trimodality radiotherapy uses a bimodal hybrid machine plus an independent scanner with patient transfer systems.[4](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/oncology/articles/10.3389/fonc.2020.614008/full)\n\n## References\n\n1. [Image Fusion Using CT, MRI and PET for Treatment Planning, Navigation and Follow Up in Percutaneous RFA](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2850071/)\n2. [A Review of Multimodal Medical Image Fusion Techniques](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2020/8279342)\n3. [Registration of MR and CT images for skull base surgery using point-like anatomical features](https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-64-767-1030)\n4. [Trimodality PET/CT/MRI and Radiotherapy: A Mini-Review](https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/oncology/articles/10.3389/fonc.2020.614008/full)\n5. [The Clinical Role of Fusion Imaging Using PET, CT, and MR Imaging](https://www.hug.ch/sites/interhug/files/structures/pinlab/documents/PETClin2008clinical.pdf)\n6. [A novel technique to evaluate the geometrical accuracy of CT-MR image fusion in Gamma Knife radiosurgery procedures](https://reference-global.com/download/article/10.2478/v10013-010-0006-8.pdf)\n7. [Magnetic resonance image–directed stereotactic neurosurgery: use of image fusion with computerized tomography to enhance spatial accuracy](https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1995.83.2.0271)\n8. [Accurate combination of CT and MR data of the head: validation and applications in surgical and therapy planning](https://europepmc.org/article/MED/8306310)\n9. [MedFusionGAN: multimodal medical image fusion using an unsupervised deep generative adversarial network](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10704723/)\n10. [Charles A. Pelizzari and colleagues (1989). Accurate Three-Dimensional Registration of CT, PET, and/or MR Images of the Brain. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography.](https://doi.org/10.1097/00004728-198901000-00004)\n11. [Marcel van Herk, Hanne M. Kooy (1994). Automatic three‐dimensional correlation of CT‐CT, CT‐MRI, and CT‐SPECT using chamfer matching. Medical Physics.](https://doi.org/10.1118/1.597344)\n12. [G. Borgefors (1988). Hierarchical chamfer matching: a parametric edge matching algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.](https://doi.org/10.1109/34.9107)\n13. [A versatile system for multimodality image fusion (Journal of Image Guided Surgery, 1995)](https://doi.org/10.1002/%28sici%291522-712x%281995%291:1<35::aid-igs6>3.0.co;2-n)\n14. [F. Maes and colleagues (1997). Multimodality image registration by maximization of mutual information. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.](https://doi.org/10.1109/42.563664)\n15. [Factors influencing the accuracy of multimodal image fusion for oral and maxillofacial tumors: a retrospective study](https://bmcoralhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12903-022-02679-0)\n16. [Image Fusion for Radiosurgery, Neurosurgery and Hypofractionated Radiotherapy](https://www.cureus.com/articles/2820-image-fusion-for-radiosurgery-neurosurgery-and-hypofractionated-radiotherapy)\n17. [R Han and colleagues (2022). Joint synthesis and registration network for deformable MR-CBCT image registration for neurosurgical guidance. Physics in Medicine and Biology.](https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ac72ef)\n18. [Dual-teacher self-distillation registration for multi-modality medical image fusion (DTMFusion)](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031320325010349)\n19. [CT and MRI Image Fusion Error: An Analysis of Co-Registration Error Using Commercially Available Deep Brain Stimulation Surgical Planning Software](https://karger.com/sfn/article/99/3/196/293976/CT-and-MRI-Image-Fusion-Error-An-Analysis-of-Co)\n20. [Nadine Abi-Jaoudeh and colleagues (2012). Multimodality Image Fusion–Guided Procedures: Technique, Accuracy, and Applications. CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology.](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-012-0446-5)\n21. [Image fusion pitfalls for cranial radiosurgery](https://surgicalneurologyint.com/article/image-fusion-pitfalls-for-cranial-radiosurgery)\n22. [Deep learning-based cross-modal MR-CT registration for brain metastases radiotherapy with multi-scale feature refinement and brainstem guidance](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-026-55496-8)\n23. [A review of substitute CT generation for MRI-only radiation therapy](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13014-016-0747-y)\n24. [Generation of synthetic CT data using patient specific daily MR image data and image registration](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6560/aa5200)\n25. [Comparison of the Accuracy of PET/CT and PET/MRI Spatial Registration of Multiple Metastatic Lesions](https://www.ajronline.org/doi/10.2214/AJR.13.11305)\n26. [PET/MRI: Where might it replace PET/CT?](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmri.25711)\n\n---\n*Topic: Encyclopedia › Life and health › Human health and medicine › Clinical assessment and procedures › Medical imaging and radiography › Image analysis and quantitative imaging*\n\n*Initially written Sep 29, 2026 · Edited: Oct 15, 2026; Oct 25, 2026*\n\n*Copyright 2026 EdgeChat AI, a subsidiary of Biostate AI.*\n\nLicense: Edgepedia Community License 1.0, https://www.edgepedia.org/edgepedia/license\n", "same_as": [], "url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/computed-tomography-magnetic-resonance-imaging-fusion", "markdown_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/computed-tomography-magnetic-resonance-imaging-fusion.md", "license": { "name": "Edgepedia Community License 1.0", "url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/edgepedia/license", "summary": "Free with credit, commercial use included. AI training is open to everyone. For other uses, organizations over USD 100M in revenue or 100M monthly users license separately.", "spdx": "LicenseRef-Edgepedia-Community-1.0" }, "credit": "\"Computed tomography–magnetic resonance imaging fusion\", Edgepedia (EdgeChat), https://www.edgepedia.org/computed-tomography-magnetic-resonance-imaging-fusion. Edgepedia Community License 1.0.", "credit_md": "\"[Computed tomography–magnetic resonance imaging fusion](https://www.edgepedia.org/computed-tomography-magnetic-resonance-imaging-fusion)\", Edgepedia (EdgeChat), [https://www.edgepedia.org/computed-tomography-magnetic-resonance-imaging-fusion](https://www.edgepedia.org/computed-tomography-magnetic-resonance-imaging-fusion). [Edgepedia Community License 1.0](https://www.edgepedia.org/edgepedia/license).", "credit_html": "\"Computed tomography–magnetic resonance imaging fusion\", Edgepedia (EdgeChat), https://www.edgepedia.org/computed-tomography-magnetic-resonance-imaging-fusion. Edgepedia Community License 1.0.", "speakable": "Computed tomography–magnetic resonance imaging fusion aligns CT and MRI scans of the same patient into a single image, combining bone detail with soft-tissue contrast." }