Unsupervised Learning for Feature Extraction and Temporal Alignment of 3D+t Point Clouds of Zebrafish Embryos

Ina Laube; Johannes Stegmaier; Zhu Chen

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 15 references

Unsupervised Learning for Feature Extraction and Temporal Alignment of 3D+t Point Clouds of Zebrafish Embryos

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An unsupervised pipeline can align 3D+t point clouds of zebrafish embryos to an average mismatch of 3.83 minutes over a 5.3-hour developmental window, without any manual labels.

desk verdict First unsupervised 3D+t embryo alignment pipeline, but the headline 3.83-minute accuracy is only demonstrated on synthetic time-warped versions of the same embryo, so cross-embryo validity is unproven. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06543 v1 pith:GVBQZZ7W submitted 2025-02-10 cs.CV

Zhu Chen , Ina Laube , Johannes Stegmaier This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords temporalalignment3D+tpointcloudszebrafishembryounsupervisedlearningautoencoderFoldingNetdevelopmentalstaginglight-sheetmicroscopy

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

This paper aims to establish that the developmental stages of zebrafish embryos can be synchronized automatically from 3D point-cloud movies, with no manual labeling and no human supervision. It proposes a two-step pipeline: a point-cloud autoencoder compresses each time frame into a 256-dimensional latent code, and a regression network maps each code to a reference frame index so that two embryos can be paired up in time. On validation data built by artificially warping the developmental speed of a real embryo, the aligned sequences differ from ground truth by 3.83 minutes on average over a 5.3-hour window, a figure the authors contrast with roughly 30 minutes for expert manual alignment. If the result holds on real embryo pairs, it would make large comparative screens practical and remove subjective bias from staging.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a point-cloud autoencoder with a 256-dimensional bottleneck, built from FoldingNet and altered in two ways: the decoder folds a spherical template rather than a planar grid, and the loss is a Modified Chamfer Distance (MCD) that replaces point-to-point nearest distances with the average distance to the k nearest neighbors. The MCD loss is what preserves local density, which matters because during epiboly the embryo's point density shifts as it grows from a hemisphere to a full sphere and its center of gravity moves. The encoder's latent vector is the only representation passed to the regression network, so the entire alignment accuracy depends on that code being chronologically smooth and discriminative; the authors verify this with point-cloud reconstructions, coordinate traces, and t-SNE projections that show smooth color gradients along time.

What would settle it

Take two real embryos imaged from the same fertilization time, obtain frame-accurate stage annotations from multiple independent experts, and compare the pipeline's pairwise alignment with those labels; if the average disagreement is substantially larger than 3.83 minutes, or larger than expert inter-rater variability, the synthetic ground truth was not representative.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the geometry of a developing zebrafish embryo's point cloud contains enough temporal information for accurate synchronization, and that an unsupervised autoencoder can extract that information without any stage annotations. The authors modify FoldingNet by decoding from a spherical point template instead of a planar grid and by replacing the Chamfer Distance with a Modified Chamfer Distance that averages over the k nearest neighbors, thereby preserving local density as the embryo grows from a hemisphere to a sphere. They then train an MLP regression network on the latent codes of one reference embryo to predict frame indices, and post-process the predicted index sequence to enforce monotonicity. Across 4-fold cross-validation and four types of synthetic speed variation (cosine, sine, Gaussian, and linear), the average mismatch is 3.83 minutes; with random rotation augmentation it improves to 3.48 minutes, while centering the point clouds degrades it to 5.74 minutes, which the authors interpret as evidence that centroid position carries staging information.

Load-bearing premise

The entire 3.83-minute accuracy claim rests on the assumption that randomly stretching or compressing a single embryo's developmental speed, with added point jitter, produces test cases that behave like real developmental differences between two embryos.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Large comparative screens of mutant or chemically treated embryos become feasible without manual staging, since alignment requires only forward passes through the trained autoencoder and regression network.
The 256-dimensional latent code can serve as a continuous developmental coordinate, allowing downstream analyses to compare morphological states rather than raw time indices.
Rotation augmentation improves average alignment error to 3.48 minutes, indicating the pipeline tolerates moderately different embryo orientations but is not fully rotation-invariant.
Centering point clouds degrades alignment to 5.74 minutes, implying that the centroid's position carries staging information and normalization steps may discard useful developmental signal.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial extension: Because the latent features are chronologically ordered, the same autoencoder could be repurposed as an unsupervised developmental clock that predicts absolute hours post fertilization on new embryos, not just relative alignment to a reference.
Editorial extension: The method assumes the point clouds are already spatially prealigned with the animal and vegetal poles fixed; a testable extension is to prepend a learned canonical orientation module so raw, unaligned recordings can be handled automatically.
Editorial extension: The synthetic ground truth only varies developmental speed on one embryo, so it cannot expose failure modes from genuine morphological differences between individuals; the authors' planned multi-rater frame-accurate labels are the natural check on whether the reported accuracy transfers to real embryo pairs.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

Here's my take. The genuinely new thing is the first unsupervised pipeline for temporal alignment of 3D+t embryo point clouds: a FoldingNet autoencoder with a spherical template and MCD loss, then an MLP regressing latent features to frame indices, with a monotonicity postprocess. The authors ran the obvious ablations on rotation and translation, and the t-SNE and reconstruction visuals show the features do carry temporal information. Credit where due: the writing is clear, the method is reproducible in principle, and the lack of frame-accurate ground truth is stated upfront rather than hidden.

The soft spot is exactly what the stress-test note flags. The 3.83-minute number in the abstract is measured by aligning an embryo to its own time-warped variants (Sec. 3.1). The warps change development speed and add Gaussian jitter, but the morphology comes from the same individual. So the test measures how well the network inverts known temporal rescalings, not whether the feature-to-frame mapping transfers across real embryos. Inter-embryo differences in cell number, shape, orientation, and developmental offset are not represented. That is load-bearing, and the paper's own ablation makes it concrete: when you center the point clouds, the error jumps to 5.74 minutes (Tab. 1), suggesting part of the learned signal is the reference embryo's centroid drift, which is not guaranteed to generalize.

Smaller issues: regression hyperparameters were tuned without a validation set, no code or weights are released, and there is no quantitative comparison against supervised or landmark-based baselines. The manual baseline of 30 minutes is anecdotal. None of these are fatal, and the authors acknowledge the evaluation limitation and say multi-rater labels are on the way.

Overall: the method is plausible and clearly described, but the central claim as stated is not yet supported for real cross-embryo alignment. It deserves a serious referee, and I would send it out, but I would push for a more honest framing of what the synthetic evaluation can and cannot show, and ideally a proof-of-concept on a held-out embryo from a different imaging session or orientation. If that evidence lands, this becomes a useful contribution to developmental imaging. As it stands, treat the 3.83-minute figure as a within-embryo synthetic benchmark, not an accuracy guarantee for real specimens.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an unsupervised pipeline for temporally aligning 3D+t point clouds of zebrafish embryos. A modified FoldingNet autoencoder (with a spherical template and a Modified Chamfer Distance loss) is used to learn a 256-dimensional latent feature vector for each time frame. A regression MLP then maps these feature vectors to frame indices, using one selected reference embryo's acquisition time indices as training targets. A monotonicity postprocessing step converts the raw predictions into a valid alignment. Since no frame-accurate ground truth is available, the authors generate synthetic validation data by time-warping each held-out test embryo (cosine, sine, Gaussian, and faster developmental speeds) and adding Gaussian jitter to the point clouds. Under 4-fold cross-validation, the average alignment mismatch is reported as 3.83 minutes over a developmental period stated to be 5.3 hours (370 frames). Ablations show that adding rotation increases variance slightly, while origin-centering degrades accuracy to 5.74 minutes, which the authors attribute to the centroid displacement being a developmental-stage signal.

Significance. If the reported accuracy held for genuinely different embryos, the method would be a valuable tool for automatic temporal synchronization of developmental point-cloud data without manual annotation. The paper has several strengths: it addresses an important problem in developmental biology imaging; the autoencoder modifications (spherical template, MCD loss) are technically reasonable and are supported by reconstruction comparisons; the pipeline is fully automatic; and the authors report ablation studies for rotation and translation. The paper is also honest about the lack of frame-accurate ground truth and states that manual labeling studies are ongoing. However, the central quantitative claim is currently supported only by synthetic same-embryo evaluations, so the significance as a cross-embryo method is not yet demonstrated. The manuscript also overstates its 'fully-unsupervised' status, since the regression network is trained with reference frame indices as targets.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 3.1-3.2, Table 1] The reported average mismatch of 3.83 minutes is measured by aligning each held-out test embryo to its own synthetically time-warped variants. Because the embryo's morphology is fixed and only the time axis is stretched or compressed (plus small Gaussian jitter), this evaluation quantifies the ability to invert a known temporal reparameterization of a single embryo, not the ability to temporally align different biological specimens. Real inter-embryo variation includes differences in cell number, morphology, orientation, and developmental offset, none of which are represented by time-axis warps. The abstract's claim of 'high alignment accuracy' for temporal alignment is therefore not supported for the cross-embryo scenario that motivates the paper. Supporting this concern, the ablation in Suppl. Fig. 5 and Table 1 shows that removing the centroid displacement increases the average error to 5.74 minutes and increases variance, indicating that the learned representation partly relies on an absolute positional signal that may not transfer across embryos. The authors should either add a cross-embryo evaluation (e.g., manual staging landmarks or an indirect proxy such as known developmental milestones) or explicitly qualify the claim as same-embryo temporal-warp recovery.
[Sec. 2.2, Sec. 3.2] The regression network is trained on a single baseline embryo's feature-to-frame-index mapping, and its hyperparameters are selected empirically based on training-loss convergence because 'there is no validation or test set available' (Sec. 3.2). Since no validation set is used, the selected architecture and learning rate may overfit the specific baseline embryo. The held-out test embryo is used only for the final synthetic evaluation, not for hyperparameter selection, so the reported accuracy is an optimistic estimate of generalization even for the synthetic task. Please add a validation split for regression hyperparameters or otherwise demonstrate that the chosen configuration is not specific to one embryo.
[Abstract, Sec. 2.2, Sec. 4] The method is described as 'fully-unsupervised' and as requiring 'no manual labeling effort,' but the regression network is trained with the time frame indices of the reference embryo as ground truth (Sec. 2.2). While these indices are automatically acquired and are not manual developmental-stage annotations, they are supervised training targets. The approach is therefore better described as self-supervised or weakly supervised for the alignment stage. The terminology in the abstract and conclusion should be revised to avoid overstating the unsupervised nature of the full pipeline.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. 3.1] The data set description states that embryos were imaged from 4.7 to 10.0 hpf with one-minute intervals and that each embryo has 370 time frames. This corresponds to 6.17 hours (370 minutes), not 5.3 hours (318 minutes). Please reconcile the duration or the number of frames.
[Eq. (2)] The Modified Chamfer Distance in Eq. (2) is described as a 'point-to-region' distance, but the formula sums k nearest-neighbor point-to-point distances. Please clarify the relationship to the stated 'point-to-region' interpretation, and define the distance function d explicitly.
[Sec. 4] The manual alignment accuracy of 'on the order of 30 minutes' is attributed to feedback from a biological expert. Since this is used as a baseline for the method's claimed superiority, please describe how this figure was obtained or label it as an anecdotal estimate.
[Sec. 3.2] The statement that hyperparameters are determined empirically 'since there is no validation or test set available' is confusing, because a held-out test embryo is subsequently used for evaluation. The authors likely mean there is no validation set; please clarify.
[Sec. 3.1] For the Gaussian and 'Faster' shifting methods, please specify how the ground-truth alignment is defined when intermediate frames are interpolated or skipped, since this affects the error calculation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the synthetic ground-truth evaluation is explicitly labeled as a surrogate, and the reported errors are genuine predictions on held-out time-warped embryos rather than quantities forced by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim is a 3.83-minute average mismatch measured on synthetic time-warped copies of a held-out test embryo (Sec. 3.1, Sec. 3.2, Tab. 1). The ground truth is generated by known stretching/compression functions plus point jitter, and the regression network must predict frame indices from autoencoder features of these unseen warped sequences. This is a synthetic benchmark, not a circular derivation: the network is trained on a different baseline embryo, the warp parameters are not encoded in the loss or architecture, and the paper reports nonzero errors including a degraded 5.74-minute result when centering is applied. The text explicitly acknowledges that 'no frame-accurate ground truth is available yet' (Sec. 4) and that the synthetic protocol is an assessment substitute, which is a limitation in external validity rather than a case where an output equals an input by definition. The FoldingNet architecture is taken from external literature [1], the MCD loss is a stated modification, and the t-SNE visualizations are independent diagnostics. Self-citations to [2] and [4] concern a public dataset and an augmentation strategy previously described by the same group; they are not invoked as unverified authorities to force the main claim. The central concern with this paper is generalization to real inter-embryo variation, which is a correctness matter, not circularity. No specific equation or fitted parameter is shown to reduce to its own input, so no circular step is identified and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method contributes an unsupervised alignment pipeline, but it rests on domain assumptions about the data set's staging, orientation, and the validity of synthetic warps. All parameters are hand-selected or empirically tuned, and no independent ground truth is used.

free parameters (6)

Spherical template point count M
The number of points on the spherical decoder template is not reported and is hand-chosen; it controls reconstruction capacity.
MCD neighborhood size k = 20
Set to 20 without a reported ablation; this is central to the proposed Modified Chamfer Distance loss.
Point cloud subsample size = 4096
Fixed 4096 randomly chosen points; original clouds have 4160 to 19794 points, and no sensitivity analysis is given.
Latent feature dimension = 256
Bottleneck size of the autoencoder, chosen by hand and not swept.
Regression network hyperparameters = learning rate 1e-5, 700 epochs
Hyperparameters are selected empirically based on convergence of training loss with no validation set, as stated in Sec. 3.2.
Gaussian point jitter variance = 5
Chosen to make synthetic shifted embryos substantially differ from the original; no justification for the value.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The four embryos' temporal windows largely overlap and frame indices 1..370 can serve as regression targets
Sec. 3.1 states there are no frame-accurate annotations of developmental time, only that temporal windows largely overlap. The regression network is trained with frame indices as ground truth.
domain assumption Synthetic time-warped variants of a single embryo are a valid proxy for real inter-embryo developmental differences
Sec. 3.1 generates ground truth by stretching/compressing the time axis of a selected embryo with jitter, not by using independently staged embryos. The headline accuracy depends on this proxy.
domain assumption The data set's spatial prealignment (animal-vegetal pole along y-axis, dorsal along positive x-axis) is preserved
Sec. 2.1 relies on this coordinate convention; rotation augmentation is applied, but experiments show rotation increases variance, so orientation is load-bearing.
domain assumption Random subsampling to 4096 points preserves the shape and density information needed for alignment
Sec. 3.1 fixes the subsample size without a sensitivity study, yet the method operates only on these subsampled point clouds.
domain assumption Improved reconstruction quality (MCD loss) implies improved alignment-relevant features
The paper uses reconstruction loss to justify MCD, and reports better alignment, but the link between reconstruction fidelity and temporal discriminability is not proven.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unsupervised Learning for Feature Extraction and Temporal Alignment of 3D+t Point Clouds of Zebrafish Embryos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GVBQZZ7W

@misc{pith2026250206543,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unsupervised Learning for Feature Extraction and Temporal Alignment of 3D+t Point Clouds of Zebrafish Embryos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GVBQZZ7W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06543}
}

read the original abstract

Zebrafish are widely used in biomedical research and developmental stages of their embryos often need to be synchronized for further analysis. We present an unsupervised approach to extract descriptive features from 3D+t point clouds of zebrafish embryos and subsequently use those features to temporally align corresponding developmental stages. An autoencoder architecture is proposed to learn a descriptive representation of the point clouds and we designed a deep regression network for their temporal alignment. We achieve a high alignment accuracy with an average mismatch of only 3.83 minutes over an experimental duration of 5.3 hours. As a fully-unsupervised approach, there is no manual labeling effort required and unlike manual analyses the method easily scales. Besides, the alignment without human annotation of the data also avoids any influence caused by subjective bias.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06543 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Comparison of raw 3D point clouds (left sub-panels) and the reconstructions of our modified FoldingNet that was trained with MCD and the spherical point template (right sub-panels). Shape and density distribution of the reconstructions are nicely preserved, i.e., the learned representation successfully condenses the properties of the input point clouds (see Suppl [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The temporal alignment network is trained with a baseline embryo and learns to map each feature vector to the corresponding reference frame index (left). The trained network is then applied to feature vectors of a new embryo and the predicted frame index sequence indicates how the embryo should be aligned to the reference (right). are not guaranteed to be monotonically increasing. We use a simple postprocessing str… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Alignment results of the embryos with different shifting methods. The black line indicates the average result of all experiments and the area shaded in gray represents the variance. The alignment error is calculated as the average number of mismatched time frame indices. tested if centering all point clouds at the origin of the coordinate axes before inputting them to the alignment network has a positive effect (Sup… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Visualization of the feature vectors using the t-SNE algorithm. The color-code represents the time frame index and changes smoothly as the time increases. 4 Conclusion In this work we present a fully-unsupervised approach to temporally align 3D+t point clouds of zebraf…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

[1]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp

Yang, Y., Feng, C., Shen, Y., Tian, D.: FoldingNet: Point Cloud Auto-Encoder via Deep Grid Deformation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 206–215 (2018)

work page 2018
[2]

In: Simulation and Synthesis in Medical Imaging, pp

Traub, M., Stegmaier, J.: Towards Automatic Embryo Staging in 3D+t Microscopy Images using Convolutional Neural Networks and PointNets. In: Simulation and Synthesis in Medical Imaging, pp. 153–163 (2020)

work page 2020
[3]

Animal Frontiers9(3), 68–77 (2019)

Teame, T., Zhang, Z., Ran, C., Zhang, H., Yang, Y., Ding, Q., Xie, M., Gao, C., Ye, Y., Duan, M., Zhou, Z.: The Use of Zebrafish (Danio rerio) as Biomedical Models. Animal Frontiers9(3), 68–77 (2019)

work page 2019
[4]

Scientific Reports5(1), 8601 (2015)

Kobitski, A.Y., Otte, J.C., Takamiya, M., Schäfer, B., Mertes, J., Stegmaier, J., Rastegar, S., Rindone, F., Hartmann, V., Stotzka, R., García, A., van Wezel, J., Mikut, R., Strähle, U., Nienhaus, G.U.: An Ensemble-Averaged, Cell Density-based Digital Model of Zebrafish Embryo Development Derived from Light-Sheet Mi- croscopy Data with Single-Cell Resolut...

work page 2015
[5]

In: 2014 IEEE 11th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), pp

Guignard, L., Godin, C., Fiuza, U.M., Hufnagel, L., Lemaire, P., Malandain, G.: Spatio-Temporal Registration of Embryo Images. In: 2014 IEEE 11th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), pp. 778–781 (2014)

work page 2014
[6]

PLOS Computational Biology10(6), 1–13 (2014)

Castro-González, C., Luengo-Oroz, M.A., Duloquin, L., Savy, T., Rizzi, B., Desnoulez, S., Doursat, R., Kergosien, Y.L., Ledesma-Carbayo, M.J., Bourgine, P., Peyriéras, N., Santos, A.: A Digital Framework to Build, Visualize and Analyze a Gene Expression Atlas with Cellular Resolution in Zebrafish Early Embryogenesis. PLOS Computational Biology10(6), 1–13 (2014)

work page 2014
[7]

Journal of Machine Learning Research 9(11), 2579–2605 (2008)

Van der Maaten, L., Hinton, G.: Visualizing Data using t-SNE. Journal of Machine Learning Research 9(11), 2579–2605 (2008)

work page 2008
[8]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp

Qi, C.R., Su, H., Mo, K., Guibas, L.J.: PointNet: Deep Learning on Point Sets for 3D Classification and Segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 652-660 (2017)

work page 2017

Show all 15 references

[9]

The Visualization Handbook (2005)

Ahrens, J., Geveci, B., Law, C.C.: ParaView: An End-User Tool for Large-Data Visualization. The Visualization Handbook (2005)

2005
[10]

In: ICLR 2019 Workshop on Representation Learning on Graphs and Manifolds (2019)

Fey,M.,Lenssen,J.E.:FastGraphRepresentationLearningwithPyTorchGeomet- ric. In: ICLR 2019 Workshop on Representation Learning on Graphs and Manifolds (2019)

2019
[11]

In: 2020 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), pp

Chaton, T., Chaulet, N., Horache, S., Landrieu, L.: Torch-Points3D: A Modular Multi-Task Framework for Reproducible Deep Learning on 3D Point Clouds. In: 2020 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), pp. 1–10 (2020)

2020
[12]

PLOS Computational Biology 14(4), 1–18 (2018)

Schott, B., Traub, M., Schlagenhauf, C., Takamiya, M., Antritter, T., Bartschat, A., Löffler, K., Blessing, D., Otte, J.C., Kobitski, A.Y., Nienhaus, G.U., Strähle, U., Mikut, R., Stegmaier, J.: EmbryoMiner: A New Framework for Interactive Knowl- edge Discovery in Large-Scale ...

2018
[13]

In: 2016 IEEE 13th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), pp

Michelin, G., Refahi, Y., Wightman, R., Jönsson, H., Traas, J., Godin, C., Ma- landain, G.: Spatio-Temporal Registration of 3D Microscopy Image Sequences of Arabidopsis Floral Meristems. In: 2016 IEEE 13th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), pp. 1127–1130 (2016)

2016
[14]

In: 2015 IEEE 12th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), pp

Michelin, G., Guignard, L., Fiuza, U.M., Lemaire, P., Godine, C., Malandain, G.: Cell Pairings for Ascidian Embryo Registration. In: 2015 IEEE 12th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), pp. 298–301 (2015) 10 Chen et al

2015
[15]

Cell175(3), 859– 876.e33 (2018) Temporal Alignment of 3D+t Point Clouds 11 Supplementary Material (a) x-axis: CD (b) x-axis: MCD (c) y-axis: CD (d) y-axis: MCD Suppl

McDole, K., Guignard, L., Amat F., Berger, A., Malandain, G., Royer, L.A., Turaga, S.C., Branson, K., Keller, P.J.: In Toto Imaging and Reconstruction of Post-Implantation Mouse Development at the Single-Cell Level. Cell175(3), 859– 876.e33 (2018) Temporal Alignment of 3D+t Po...

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp

Yang, Y., Feng, C., Shen, Y., Tian, D.: FoldingNet: Point Cloud Auto-Encoder via Deep Grid Deformation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 206–215 (2018)

work page 2018

[2] [2]

In: Simulation and Synthesis in Medical Imaging, pp

Traub, M., Stegmaier, J.: Towards Automatic Embryo Staging in 3D+t Microscopy Images using Convolutional Neural Networks and PointNets. In: Simulation and Synthesis in Medical Imaging, pp. 153–163 (2020)

work page 2020

[3] [3]

Animal Frontiers9(3), 68–77 (2019)

Teame, T., Zhang, Z., Ran, C., Zhang, H., Yang, Y., Ding, Q., Xie, M., Gao, C., Ye, Y., Duan, M., Zhou, Z.: The Use of Zebrafish (Danio rerio) as Biomedical Models. Animal Frontiers9(3), 68–77 (2019)

work page 2019

[4] [4]

Scientific Reports5(1), 8601 (2015)

Kobitski, A.Y., Otte, J.C., Takamiya, M., Schäfer, B., Mertes, J., Stegmaier, J., Rastegar, S., Rindone, F., Hartmann, V., Stotzka, R., García, A., van Wezel, J., Mikut, R., Strähle, U., Nienhaus, G.U.: An Ensemble-Averaged, Cell Density-based Digital Model of Zebrafish Embryo Development Derived from Light-Sheet Mi- croscopy Data with Single-Cell Resolut...

work page 2015

[5] [5]

In: 2014 IEEE 11th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), pp

Guignard, L., Godin, C., Fiuza, U.M., Hufnagel, L., Lemaire, P., Malandain, G.: Spatio-Temporal Registration of Embryo Images. In: 2014 IEEE 11th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), pp. 778–781 (2014)

work page 2014

[6] [6]

PLOS Computational Biology10(6), 1–13 (2014)

Castro-González, C., Luengo-Oroz, M.A., Duloquin, L., Savy, T., Rizzi, B., Desnoulez, S., Doursat, R., Kergosien, Y.L., Ledesma-Carbayo, M.J., Bourgine, P., Peyriéras, N., Santos, A.: A Digital Framework to Build, Visualize and Analyze a Gene Expression Atlas with Cellular Resolution in Zebrafish Early Embryogenesis. PLOS Computational Biology10(6), 1–13 (2014)

work page 2014

[7] [7]

Journal of Machine Learning Research 9(11), 2579–2605 (2008)

Van der Maaten, L., Hinton, G.: Visualizing Data using t-SNE. Journal of Machine Learning Research 9(11), 2579–2605 (2008)

work page 2008

[8] [8]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp

Qi, C.R., Su, H., Mo, K., Guibas, L.J.: PointNet: Deep Learning on Point Sets for 3D Classification and Segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 652-660 (2017)

work page 2017