Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 16 references

From Pixels to Polygons: A Survey of Deep Learning Approaches for Medical Image-to-Mesh Reconstruction

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This systematic review argues that deep learning-based medical image-to-mesh reconstruction splits into four method families, and that published cardiac and brain MRI results rank implicit models first, followed by generative models…

desk verdict A useful reference map for medical image-to-mesh reconstruction, but the headline method ranking rests on a meta-analysis that mixes incomparable studies and should be heavily revised before the paper is used as evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03599 v1 pith:QSL7GLHF submitted 2025-05-06 cs.CV

Fengming Lin , Arezoo Zakeri , Yidan Xue , Michael MacRaild , Haoran Dou , Zherui Zhou , Ziwei Zou , Ali Sarrami-Foroushani
show 2 more authors
Jinming Duan Alejandro F. Frangi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords image-to-meshreconstructiondeeplearningmeshgenerationtemplatedeformationstatisticalshapemodelgenerativeimplicitneuralrepresentationmedicalimagingsurvey
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 survey organizes the fast-moving field of deep learning-based medical image-to-mesh reconstruction, where CT, MR, or ultrasound images are turned directly into the 3D meshes needed for simulation and in silico trials. The authors argue that all end-to-end approaches fall into four families—template deformation, statistical shape models, generative models, and implicit models—further divided into twelve subcategories by pipeline and feature representation. They also map the loss functions, evaluation metrics, and public datasets used across the field, and pool published cardiac MRI and brain MRI results into a meta-analysis. The paper's comparative claim is a relative ranking: implicit models first, then generative models, then statistical shape models, then template models, based on reported Dice, Hausdorff, Chamfer, and surface-distance numbers. The claim matters because it gives practitioners a structured way to choose a reconstruction approach and tells the field where the published evidence currently points.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the four-part taxonomy, with each family defined by how the surface is represented and produced. Template models use a fixed initial mesh refined by learned vertex displacements; statistical shape models compress shape variation into a linear (PCA) or non-linear latent space; generative models build shapes from learned distributions, including point-cloud completion; implicit models represent the surface as the zero level set of a learned function, typically a signed distance function, occupancy probability, neural ODE flow, or volumetric density field, and convert it to a mesh by isosurface extraction. The taxonomy does the organizing work of the survey, turning dozens of papers into comparable families. The comparative ranking is carried by a meta-analysis that pools published results by anatomy and imaging modality—cardiac MRI and cortical MRI—across standard metrics such as Dice similarity, Hausdorff distance, Chamfer distance, mean distance, and average symmetric surface distance, with the stated assumption that studies sharing anatomy and modality are comparable by clinical standards.

What would settle it

Run template, statistical, generative, and implicit methods on one public cardiac MRI dataset and one cortical MRI dataset with identical training and test splits, ground-truth meshes, and metric code; if template or statistical models match or beat implicit/generative models on Dice and surface distance, the survey's ranking fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a scattered set of reconstruction techniques can be organized into four coherent paradigms with distinct strengths. Template models deform a hand-built mesh under image guidance; statistical shape models project images into low-dimensional shape spaces; generative models synthesize point clouds or meshes from image latents through VAEs, GANs, completion networks, or diffusion; implicit models learn continuous fields such as signed distance, occupancy, neural ODE flows, or radiance fields, then extract the mesh as an isosurface. The meta-analysis covers cardiac MRI with template, statistical, and generative families and cortical MRI with template, generative, and implicit families, using common metrics. The reported numbers place implicit models at the low-error end for cortex, generative models ahead on cardiac Dice and Hausdorff distance, and template models trailing on these tasks; joining the two comparisons yields the overall ranking implicit > generative > statistical shape > template. The authors explicitly call this ranking relative rather than absolute, since particular methods can win on specific anatomies, data qualities, or tasks.

Load-bearing premise

The meta-analysis treats published numbers from different studies as comparable whenever the anatomy and imaging modality match, so the ranking could reflect dataset splits, ground-truth construction, or metric definitions rather than true method differences.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On this evidence, a practitioner starting a cardiac or cortical MRI reconstruction task would look first at implicit or generative models for raw geometric accuracy, and at template or statistical models when fixed topology, stability, or small training sets are priorities.
  • The twelve-subcategory taxonomy gives the field a shared vocabulary, so new methods can be positioned by pipeline and output representation rather than by name alone.
  • The loss and metric classification implies that reported accuracy depends on metric choice and regularization as much as on architecture, so future comparisons should state which representation each number refers to.
  • The survey's own future-directions section predicts that new continuous representations such as Gaussian splatting and multi-modal fusion will push mesh fidelity and efficiency further.
  • The meta-analysis also exposes a gap: no diffusion-based end-to-end image-to-mesh pipeline exists yet, so this family is currently used for image enhancement or data augmentation before meshing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the meta-analysis pools numbers from studies with different datasets, ground-truth definitions, and preprocessing, the ranking should be read as a statement about current reporting rather than a controlled comparison; a single benchmark with identical splits could reorder the middle of the ranking.
  • The same logic that favors implicit models on cortex suggests they are untested candidates for cardiac mesh reconstruction, where the meta-analysis had no implicit entries; applying SDF or neural-ODE methods to a public cardiac cohort would directly extend the ranking.
  • The taxonomy implies that template and statistical models may remain competitive in low-data regimes because their priors encode anatomy explicitly, a consequence the paper's discussion supports but its meta-analysis does not test.
  • A useful next experiment would be to use the paper's loss-and-metric classification as a reporting checklist and run one method from each family on the same anatomy, since the face validity of the ranking depends more on such a study than on further pooling.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. This survey reviews deep learning-based methods for direct medical image-to-mesh reconstruction. It proposes a four-category taxonomy (template models, statistical shape models, generative models, implicit models) with twelve subcategories, organizes the literature by anatomy and modality, catalogs loss functions and evaluation metrics, curates a list of public datasets, and reports a meta-analysis of published cardiac and brain MRI results from which it derives a relative ranking: implicit model > generative model > statistical shape model > template model. The descriptive sections closely follow the cited papers and provide a broad map of the field. The comparative ranking is presented as a key contribution but rests on a meta-analysis that pools heterogeneous published numbers without controlling for dataset, substructure, ground-truth generation, or evaluation protocol.

Significance. If taken as a structured literature map, the paper is a useful contribution: the taxonomy is mostly clear, the loss/metric tables are broad, and the dataset summary is convenient for newcomers to the field. The paper is also honest in parts, acknowledging that no absolute superiority exists between methods in the caption of Figure 20. However, the paper's headline claim—the four-way method ranking—is not supported by the evidence as presented. Because that ranking appears in the abstract, Section 10, the discussion, and the conclusion, the central comparative claim needs substantial reworking. The survey can be valuable after either a matched-dataset reanalysis or an explicit downgrade of the ranking to a qualitative observation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 10, Tables 8-9, Figs 20-21] The meta-analysis does not control for the factors that make published results non-comparable. The cardiac Dice rows in Table 8 come from different datasets and different anatomical structures: MeshDeformNet and HeartFFDNet are evaluated on whole-heart CT/MR labels, Attar et al. and MCSI-Net on UK Biobank biventricular meshes, and Xu et al. on private cardiac MR contours. The table aggregates 'Myo', 'LA', 'LV', 'RA', and 'RV' cells as if they were interchangeable. The brain rows in Table 9 mix ADNI, HCP, OASIS, dHCP, and private scans, with ground truths produced by different pipelines (e.g., FreeSurfer meshes vs. manually constructed surfaces). Hausdorff and Chamfer values also depend on mesh resolution, vertex sampling, and correspondence schemes, none of which are controlled. Figures 20-21 report per-category medians without any heterogeneity statistic, confidence interval, or significance test, and the caption of Figure 20 explicitly disclaims 'no absolute superiority or inferiority between the methods.' In the absence of a matched-dataset reanalysis or at least a per-dataset stratification, the ranking stated in Section 10 and the Conclusion is not supported.
  2. [Section 10 and Fig. 20] The text and the figure caption contradict each other. The caption of Figure 20 says 'there is no absolute superiority or inferiority between the methods,' while Section 10 concludes with a strict ranking: implicit > generative > statistical shape model > template model. Both statements cannot stand in their current form. The paper should either present the ranking as a qualitative tendency supported by the per-method distributions, or provide a statistical model that justifies the ordering with appropriate uncertainty quantification.
  3. [Table 8 and Section 3.1] The taxonomy labels in Table 8 are internally inconsistent with the body text. Section 3.1 and Table 1 classify MR-Net as a conditioned deformation method, but Table 8 lists MR-Net as 'T- Registration' under both Hausdorff and Mean Distance. Additionally, Table 8 includes classical non-deep baselines (CPD, GMMREG, FFD, dDemons) inside the template-registration category, even though Section 1.3 limits the survey's scope to deep learning-based end-to-end image-to-mesh reconstruction. Both issues bias the per-category aggregation and should be corrected before the comparison is used to support any ranking.
  4. [Sections 1.5 and 10] The paper claims PRISMA adherence and a 'study-based statistical approach,' but the meta-analysis reporting is incomplete. There is no description of the search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, screening decisions, data extraction form, risk-of-bias assessment, or heterogeneity analysis. The cited Julian et al. [2019] is a clinical meta-analysis and does not serve as a methodological guideline for medical-image meta-analysis. If the comparison remains, it should be labeled a narrative overview rather than a meta-analysis; if the authors wish to call it a meta-analysis, the PRISMA-compliant reporting items need to be added.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 1.1] The sentence ending 'for advancing diagnostic and therapeutic techniques.for advanc-' is duplicated and truncated; please fix the wording.
  2. [Table 8] In the Hausdorff block, the row 'MeshDeformNet Kong and Shadden [2021]' should cite Kong et al. [2021], while the row 'HeartFFDNet Kong and Shadden [2023]' should cite Kong and Shadden [2021]; the citation years for MeshDeformNet and HeartFFDNet appear swapped.
  3. [Section 6] The text says 'Common types of implicit models summarized in Table 15' but the corresponding table is numbered Table 4; please correct the cross-reference.
  4. [Table 7] The 'Download Link' column contains no actual links; either provide URLs for each dataset or remove the column.
  5. [Section 5.4] The sentence 'Song et al. [2020] used denoising diffusion implicit models to iteratively refine reconstructed slices' appears to attribute the DDIM usage to Song et al., but in context this is part of the DMCVR pipeline (He et al. [2023]); please clarify the attribution.
  6. [Figure 3] The label 'Voxe Grid' should read 'Voxel Grid'.
  7. [References] The in-text citation 'Maxime et al. [2022]' is inconsistent with the reference entry 'Di Folco Maxime, Moceri Pamela, Clarysse Patrick, and Duchateau Nicolas'; please harmonize the citation style.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the survey's taxonomy and meta-analysis are descriptive aggregations of published results, not self-validating derivations.

full rationale

This paper is a systematic survey rather than a derivation of new results, so the central content is a description and categorization of other groups' published methods and reported numbers. The taxonomy in Sections 2-6 is definitional in the ordinary sense of a literature review: methods are grouped by their processing pipelines and feature representations, and the categories are not defined in terms of the survey's later performance ranking. The meta-analysis in Section 10 pools published Dice, Hausdorff, Chamfer, and surface-distance values from Tables 8 and 9, and the headline ranking (implicit > generative > statistical shape model > template model) is a restatement of the medians of those pooled numbers, not a fitted parameter or a quantity that is then renamed as a prediction. The authors' own prior work appears in the reference list and in some table entries (e.g., Sarrami-Foroushani et al. 2021, Lin et al. 2023, Gaggion et al. 2024), but the survey's claims do not depend on the correctness of those self-cited results, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation chain. The most substantive concern is that the meta-analysis mixes studies with different datasets, preprocessing pipelines, ground-truth generation protocols, and metric implementations, which may make the relative ranking reflect study differences rather than true method performance. That is a validity or comparability concern, not a circularity concern, because the ranking is not used to define the categories and no equation in the paper makes the output equivalent to its input by construction. Under the required standard of exhibiting a specific reduction (e.g., Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction, or a fitted parameter renamed as prediction), no circular step can be identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

As a survey, the paper introduces no free parameters or new entities. Its central analytical claims rest on the comparability assumption of the meta-analysis and on the completeness of the proposed taxonomy.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Published papers included in the meta-analysis are directly comparable when they share anatomy and modality.
    Section 10 states that only studies with the same medical objective and imaging modality were included, but Tables 8 and 9 aggregate numbers from different datasets and protocols without statistical controls.
  • domain assumption The four-way taxonomy (template, statistical, generative, implicit) is exhaustive for end-to-end medical image-to-mesh reconstruction.
    The survey organizes all reviewed methods into this scheme, but does not prove that the categories are disjoint or that no method falls outside them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Pixels to Polygons: A Survey of Deep Learning Approaches for Medical Image-to-Mesh Reconstruction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QSL7GLHF

@misc{pith2026250503599,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Pixels to Polygons: A Survey of Deep Learning Approaches for Medical Image-to-Mesh Reconstruction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QSL7GLHF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03599}
}
read the original abstract

Deep learning-based medical image-to-mesh reconstruction has rapidly evolved, enabling the transformation of medical imaging data into three-dimensional mesh models that are critical in computational medicine and in silico trials for advancing our understanding of disease mechanisms, and diagnostic and therapeutic techniques in modern medicine. This survey systematically categorizes existing approaches into four main categories: template models, statistical models, generative models, and implicit models. Each category is analysed in detail, examining their methodological foundations, strengths, limitations, and applicability to different anatomical structures and imaging modalities. We provide an extensive evaluation of these methods across various anatomical applications, from cardiac imaging to neurological studies, supported by quantitative comparisons using standard metrics. Additionally, we compile and analyze major public datasets available for medical mesh reconstruction tasks and discuss commonly used evaluation metrics and loss functions. The survey identifies current challenges in the field, including requirements for topological correctness, geometric accuracy, and multi-modality integration. Finally, we present promising future research directions in this domain. This systematic review aims to serve as a comprehensive reference for researchers and practitioners in medical image analysis and computational medicine.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03599 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Pipeline of in-silico trials, consisting of four key stages: image acquisition, reconstruc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. PRISMA flowchart summarizing the systematic review process. (PRISMA regis￾tration number: CRD420250655291) 1.3 Scope This paper focuses on deep learning-based methods for end-to-end image-to-mesh reconstruction, offering a struc￾tured taxonomy and in-depth analysis of methodologies, loss functions, evaluation metrics, and their applications in different anatomies. We categorize existing methods into four primary gro… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Survey structure, categorizing deep learning-based medical surface reconstruction into [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (19 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Chronological overview of representative template models for medical image-to-mesh re￾construction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Schematic of conditioned deforma￾tion methods. The framework consists of two pipelines: one leveraging a CNN for defor￾mation feature extraction and the other em￾ploying a GNN for direct template mesh de￾formation. During feature propagation, the CNN pipeline transfers…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Schematic of template-based regis￾tration methods. The process begins by gen￾erating a template mesh from the input im￾age using segmentation or registration tech￾niques. The image and template image are then passed into a CNN to compute the defor￾mation field, which i…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Chronological overview of representative deep learning-based statistical shape models for medical image-to-mesh reconstruction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Schematic of Deep Learning-based Linear SSM. Dotted boxes represent vari￾ables. Solid boxes represent functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Schematic of Deep Learning-based Non-linear SSM. parameters, adding shape constraints, or direct prediction of shape parameters. Banerjee et al. [2021] used an SSM in the correction of misalignment during the reconstruction of the heart contour. This method corrects th…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Chronological overview of representative deep learning-based generative models for med￾ical image-to-mesh reconstruction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Schematic representation of a vari￾ational autoencoder (VAE)-based model for mesh generation. The input image is pro￾cessed by the encoder to compute the mean and variance, which are used to sample a la￾tent vector z ∼ N (µ, σ2 ). The latent vector is then passed thro…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Schematic representation of a generative adversarial network (GAN)-based model for mesh generation. The input image is processed by the encoder to produce a la￾tent vector. The latent vector is then passed to the generator, which outputs a point cloud. The generated p…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Schematic representation of a interpolation-based method for mesh gener￾ation. The input image is processed by a CNN to generate a sparse point cloud. This sparse point cloud is then refined by a com￾pletion network to produce a dense point cloud, which is subsequentl…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Schematic representation of a dif￾fusion model for medical surface reconstruc￾tion. Diffusion models Ho et al. [2020], Kazerouni et al. [2023] are a class of generative models that learn to gener￾ate data through a two-step process: a forward process and a backward pr…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Chronological overview of representative deep learning-based implicit models for medical image-to-mesh reconstruction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Schematic of Neural ODE-based methods. In Neural ODEs, x represents a point in 3D space, t is the time parameter that controls the dynamic evolution, V (x, t) denotes the state of the point x at time t (such as its deformation during surface reconstruc￾tion), and f(x,…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Schematic of SDF methods. In the signed distance function, x represents a point in 3D space, d(x) is the distance from x to the target surface, and g(x) indicates whether x is inside (negative sign) or outside (posi￾tive sign) the surface. The g(x) is often deter￾mine…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Schematic of NeRF methods. In neural radiance fields, x is a point in 3D space, and d is the viewing direction. The density σ represents the likelihood of the point x being part of the object’s surface, and the colour c (in RGB) provides information about the appearan…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Schematic of occupancy function methods. In the occupancy function, x is a point in 3D space, and f(x) outputs a binary value indicating whether x is inside or outside a target object. If f(x) = 1, the point is inside the object; if f(x) = 0, the point is outside. The…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Quantitative results comparison on the brain MR dataset. Our data is from the same [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Quantitative results comparison on the Cardiac MR Dataset. The first column on the left [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Challenges of Medical Image-to-Mesh Reconstruction. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_22.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [2019]

    Catalina Tobon-Gomez, Arjan J

    doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2019.00047. Catalina Tobon-Gomez, Arjan J. Geers, Jochen Peters, J¨urgen Weese, Karen Pinto, Rashed Karim, Mohammed Ammar, Abdelaziz Daoudi, Jan Margeta, Zulma San- doval, Birgit Stender, Yefeng Zheng, Maria A. Zuluaga, Julian Betancur, Nicholas Ayache, Mohammed Amine Chikh, Jean-Louis Dillenseger, B. Michael Kelm, Sa ¨ıd Mahmoudi, S ´eb...

    arXiv 2019

  2. [4]

    Binbin Huang, Zehao Yu, Anpei Chen, Andreas Geiger, and Shenghua Gao

    doi: 10.1109/TNNLS.2023.3266819. Binbin Huang, Zehao Yu, Anpei Chen, Andreas Geiger, and Shenghua Gao. 2D Gaussian splatting for geometrically accurate radiance fields. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 Con- ference Papers, New York, NY , USA, 2024. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400705250. doi: 10.1145/3641519.3657428. Emer J. Hughes, Tobias Winchman, ...

    arXiv 2023

  3. [5]

    Takeshi Iwatsubo

    doi: 10.1002/mp.12059. Takeshi Iwatsubo. Japanese Alzheimer’s disease neu- roimaging initiative: Present status and future. Alzheimer’s and Dementia , 6(3):297–299, 2010. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2010.03.011. Clifford R. Jack Jr., Matt A. Bernstein, Nick C. Fox, Paul Thompson, Gene Alexander, Danielle Harvey, Bret Borowski, Paula J. Britson, Jennifer L. Whitwe...

    arXiv 2010

  4. [7]

    doi: 10.1007/ 978-3-030-87586-2 8

    Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/ 978-3-030-87586-2 8. Qiang Ma, Liu Li, Emma C. Robinson, Bernhard Kainz, Daniel Rueckert, and Amir Alansary. CortexODE: Learning cortical surface reconstruction by neural ODEs. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 42(2):430–443,

    work page

  5. [9]

    Daniel S Marcus, Tracy H Wang, Jamie Parker, John G Csernansky, John C Morris, and Randy L Buckner

    doi: 10.1136/jnis-2024-022000. Daniel S Marcus, Tracy H Wang, Jamie Parker, John G Csernansky, John C Morris, and Randy L Buckner. Open access series of imaging studies (OASIS): Cross- sectional MRI data in young, middle aged, nondemented, and demented older adults. Journal of Cognitive Neu- roscience, 19(9):1498–1507, 2007. doi: 10.1162/jocn. 2007.19.9.1...

    arXiv 2024

  6. [12]

    Roshan Reddy Upendra, S.M

    doi: 10.1109/ISBI.2015.7163978. Roshan Reddy Upendra, S.M. Kamrul Hasan, Richard Simon, Brian Jamison Wentz, Suzanne M. Shontz, Michael S. Sacks, and Cristian A. Linte. Motion extrac- tion of the right ventricle from 4D cardiac cine MRI us- ing a deep learning-based deformable registration frame- work. Proceedings of the Annual International Con- ference ...

    arXiv 2015

  7. [13]

    doi: 10.1007/ 978-3-031-43907-0 49

    Springer Nature Switzerland. doi: 10.1007/ 978-3-031-43907-0 49. Ching-Juei Yang, Cheng-Li Lin, Chien-Kuo Wang, Jing- Yao Wang, Chih-Chia Chen, Fong-Chin Su, Yin-Ju Lee, Chun-Chung Lui, Lee-Ren Yeh, and Yu-Hua Dean Fang. Generative adversarial network (GAN) for automatic re- construction of the 3D spine structure by using simulated bi-planar x-ray images....

    arXiv

  8. [15]

    ISBN 9798400701597

    Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400701597. doi: 10.1145/3588432.3591536. Meng Ye, Dong Yang, Mikael Kanski, Leon Axel, and Dimitris Metaxas. Neural deformable models for 3D bi- ventricular heart shape reconstruction and modeling from 2D sparse cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Pro- ceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Com- pute...

    arXiv

Show all 16 references
  1. [16]

    Debbie Zhao, Edward Ferdian, Gonzalo D

    doi: 10.1109/ICCV51070.2023.01943. Debbie Zhao, Edward Ferdian, Gonzalo D. Maso Talou, Gina M. Quill, Kathleen Gilbert, Vicky Y . Wang, Thi- ranja P. Babarenda Gamage, Jo˜ao Pedrosa, Jan D’hooge, Timothy M. Sutton, Boris S. Lowe, Malcolm E. Legget, Peter N. Ruygrok, Robert N. ...

    2023

  2. [1999]

    Riddhish Bhalodia, Shireen Elhabian, Jadie Adams, Wenzheng Tao, Ladislav Kavan, and Ross Whitaker

    doi: 10.1109/2945.817351. Riddhish Bhalodia, Shireen Elhabian, Jadie Adams, Wenzheng Tao, Ladislav Kavan, and Ross Whitaker. DeepSSM: A blueprint for image-to-shape deep learning models. Medical Image Analysis, 91:103034, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.media.2023.103034. Diane E. Bild, ...

  3. [2015]

    doi: 10.1007/ 978-3-319-24574-4 28

    Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/ 978-3-319-24574-4 28. Holger R Roth, Le Lu, Amal Farag, Hoo-Chang Shin, Ji- amin Liu, Evrim B Turkbey, and Ronald M Summers. Data from pancreas-ct, 2016. D. Rueckert, L.I. Sonoda, C. Hayes, D.L.G. Hill, M.O. Leach, and D.J. Hawk...

    2016

  4. [2017]

    Mathieu Fernandes, Yann Gavet, and Jean-Charles Pinoli

    doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2017.264. Mathieu Fernandes, Yann Gavet, and Jean-Charles Pinoli. Robust 3-D reconstruction of surfaces from image fo- cus by local cross-sectional multivariate statistical analy- ses: Application to human ex vivo corneal endotheliums. Medical Image Analysis ...

    2017 arXiv

  5. [2018]

    Lior Yariv, Jiatao Gu, Yoni Kasten, and Yaron Lipman

    doi: 10.1007/s10278-017-0037-8. Lior Yariv, Jiatao Gu, Yoni Kasten, and Yaron Lipman. V ol- ume rendering of neural implicit surfaces. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 6:4805–4815, 2021. Lior Yariv, Peter Hedman, Christian Reiser, Dor Verbin, Pratul P. Srini...

    2021 doi

  6. [2021]

    doi: 10.1007/ 978-3-030-87202-1 53

    Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/ 978-3-030-87202-1 53. Fanwei Kong and Shawn C. Shadden. Learning whole heart mesh generation from patient images for computational simulations. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 42 (2):533–545, 2023. doi: 10.1109/TMI.2022.32...

  7. [2023]

    Julian Maclaren, Zhaoying Han, Sjoerd B V os, Nancy Fis- chbein, and Roland Bammer

    doi: 10.1109/TMI.2022.3206221. Julian Maclaren, Zhaoying Han, Sjoerd B V os, Nancy Fis- chbein, and Roland Bammer. Reliability of brain volume measurements: A test-retest dataset. Scientific Data, 1: 140037, 2014. doi: 10.1038/sdata.2014.37. Michael MacRaild, Ali Sarrami-Forou...

    2022

  8. [2024]

    ISBN 9798400705250

    Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400705250. doi: 10.1145/3641519.3657441. IXI Dataset. Ixi dataset - information extraction from images. http://brain-development.org/ ixi-dataset/, 2021. Rahul S. Desikan, Florent S ´egonne, Bruce Fischl, Brian T. Quinn, Bradford C...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.