Fetuses Made Simple: Modeling and Tracking of Fetal Shape and Pose

Benjamin Billot; Esra Abaci Turk; Peiqi Wang; P. Ellen Grant; Polina Golland; Sebastian Diaz; Yingcheng Liu

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 24 references

Fetuses Made Simple: Modeling and Tracking of Fetal Shape and Pose

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 paper constructs the first 3D articulated statistical fetal body model, trained on MRI time series, and claims it aligns to unseen fetal shapes within 3.2 mm while enabling automated anthropometric measurements.

desk verdict First fetal SMPL model is a real contribution, but the headline 3.2 mm alignment is a one-sided Chamfer number and needs symmetric/uncertainty reporting before it carries the weight the abstract puts on it. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17858 v3 pith:5J56X4FJ submitted 2025-06-21 cs.CV

Yingcheng Liu , Peiqi Wang , Sebastian Diaz , Esra Abaci Turk , Benjamin Billot , P. Ellen Grant , Polina Golland This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords fetalMRISMPL3Dbodymodelposeestimationshapebiometrymotiontrackingkinematic

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 sets out to build the first 3D articulated statistical model of the fetal body, a surface-based kinematic template that can be registered to fetal MRI time series to recover both body shape and pose. The authors argue that existing keypoint and segmentation approaches each miss half the picture: keypoints discard full-body shape, while segmentations do not easily support motion analysis across the large fetal movements. Their model, trained on 19,816 MRI volumes from 53 subjects, represents the fetus as a SMPL-style kinematic tree and alternates between estimating pose in image space and shape in a canonical pose space. The paper claims that this decoupling makes fitting robust to motion artifacts, intensity distortions, and incomplete surface views, and reports a surface alignment error of 3.2 mm on unseen fetal shapes at 3 mm voxel size. If correct, the model provides a common surface correspondence across frames and subjects, enabling automated anthropometric measurements such as head and abdominal circumference, femur length, body length, and body volume.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a fetal-adapted SMPL model: a kinematic tree of 23 joints and roughly 6,890 surface vertices, with shape parameters $\beta$, pose parameters $\theta$, pose blend shapes, and an anatomical keypoint regressor. The enabler is a coordinate-descent loop that alternates pose estimation in image space with shape reconstruction in a canonical pose space: each frame's surface vertices are 'unposed' by the inverse kinematic transformation of their nearest model vertex, all unposed vertices across the time series are pooled to refine a subject-specific canonical shape, and the refined shape is used to re-estimate pose. This pooling across frames is what lets the method average out noise, incomplete surfaces, and touching body parts. After convergence, robust PCA over subject canonical shapes yields the population mean and shape principal components that constitute the fetal model.

What would settle it

Take a held-out set of fetuses with manual, quality-controlled body segmentations and manual keypoints, register the trained model, and compare the surface alignment error and model-derived anthropometric measurements (e.g., femur length, head circumference) against those manual labels and against ultrasound biometry; if the error climbs well above 3.2 mm or the measurements disagree systematically, the claimed generalization is an artifact of the annotation pipeline.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a 3D articulated statistical fetal body model can be learned directly from noisy MRI-derived segmentations and keypoints, without a standard-pose imaging protocol, and that this model generalizes to unseen fetal shapes and poses. The specific quantitative claim is a median surface alignment error of 3.17 mm on the New Shape test set (reported as 3.2 mm in the abstract, for 3 mm isotropic voxels) and 3.14 mm on the New Pose set, compared with 5.21 mm for the infant SMPL baseline and 3.61 mm for the baseline with an unposing step. The paper further claims the model supports automated anthropometric measurements that correlate with gestational age ($R = 0.79$ for head circumference, $R = 0.80$ for abdominal circumference, $R = 0.77$ for femur length, $R = 0.78$ for body length, $R = 0.82$ for body volume, all $p < 0.001$), and that to its knowledge it is the first such fetal model.

Load-bearing premise

The whole model inherits the correctness of the automated segmentation and keypoint annotations: if those systematically include placenta, umbilical cord, or maternal tissue, or miss limbs pressed against the abdomen, the learned shape space and the 3.2 mm error are measured against that biased ground truth.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single fetal model provides cross-frame surface correspondence, so whole-body motion analysis becomes feasible from MRI time series without per-frame segmentation matching.
Automated anthropometric measurements (head circumference, abdominal circumference, femur length, body length, body volume) can be read off the canonical shape, replacing manual or segmentation-based measurements.
Population shape principal components offer a compact description of fetal body variability that could be correlated with clinical outcomes.
The training recipe—keypoints plus segmentations, with unposing into a canonical space—transfers to other deformable anatomical structures where standard poses are impossible to acquire.
Registration to a clinical cohort (including Chiari II cases) yields a median model-to-segmentation Chamfer distance of 3.9 mm, indicating the model can be applied to populations outside the research cohort.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the model represents pose and shape separately, one could synthesize fetal poses by interpolating or extrapolating in pose space, generating training data for downstream pose-estimation networks—an extension the paper does not explore.
The same canonical-space pooling strategy could be applied to fetal ultrasound volumes or to other moving organs (e.g., the heart), wherever noisy surface observations arrive in unknown poses.
If the shape principal components prove stable across larger cohorts, model-derived biometry could be turned into growth charts that adjust for gestational age—a normative resource the paper gestures toward but does not build.
A testable extension is to use the temporal smoothness prior already in the fitting objective to detect atypical fetal motion patterns in at-risk pregnancies, since the model encodes a motion prior implicitly.

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

First, what's actually here: a fetal-specific SMPL model trained on ~20k MRI volumes across 53 subjects, with a coordinate-descent pipeline that alternates pose in image space and canonical shape after an inverse-kinematics unpose step. That is new. The closest prior work, SMIL, is for infants from RGB-D, not fetuses from MRI; the paper's "first articulated statistical fetal body model" claim holds up as far as I can tell. The held-out "New Shape" and "New Pose" splits are real generalization tests, and the baselines (infant SMPL, with and without unpose) are the right comparisons. The code is on GitHub. Credit where due: this is a solid, useful methods contribution.

The soft spot is the metric. The abstract headline "3.2 mm for 3 mm voxels" is a one-sided median Chamfer distance from segmentation to model. The training objectives are two-sided, so the model is pulled toward the segmentation, but the reported test error only measures one direction. The authors' own clinical-cohort numbers in Appendix B.2 make the consequence concrete: segmentation-to-model is 5.9 mm while model-to-segmentation is 3.9 mm. A model that sits just inside the observed surface can look good one-sided even if it doesn't explain the surface. So the 3.17 mm / 3.2 mm figure is not yet evidence of symmetric surface alignment. This is easily fixable: report both directions, symmetric Chamfer, and confidence intervals over the five New Shape folds. That's the main thing I'd require before accepting.

The annotation pipeline is the other soft spot, but it's secondary. Segmentations come from a UNet trained on a curated set, keypoints from a pre-trained model; Appendix B.2 documents false positives (cord, placenta). That could bias the learned shape, but it's not a circularity problem — the held-out subjects make the alignment numbers genuine generalization estimates. The anthropometric validation is only correlational with gestational age; no direct comparison to manual ultrasound or MRI biometry. That limits the clinical claim but doesn't undermine the model.

Bottom line: the central argument holds up as a methods paper. The headline metric overstates precision and the clinical claims are underpowered, but the contribution is real, the experiments are properly structured, and the failure modes are addressable. I'd send it to peer review; the revision should report symmetric Chamfer, uncertainty, and a direct biometry comparison. This is a paper for fetal MRI and model-based tracking people, and they'll want it in the literature.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a 3D articulated statistical fetal body model built on SMPL, trained on 19,816 MRI volumes from 53 subjects with segmentations and keypoints obtained from automatic tools. The method alternates between pose estimation in image space and shape estimation in a canonical space via an 'unpose' step. The authors claim the first such fetal model and report a median surface alignment error of 3.2 mm (3.17 mm on the New Shape test set) measured as a one-sided Chamfer distance from the segmentation surface to the model. The model is also shown to produce anthropometric measurements correlated with gestational age, and code is released.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a valuable reusable surface-based kinematic template for fetal MRI that enables automated anthropometric measurements and temporal motion analysis, filling a gap between sparse keypoint methods and volumetric segmentation methods. The evaluation includes held-out subjects (New Shape) and held-out frames (New Pose), the unpose step directly addresses a known failure mode of joint shape-pose fitting, and the code is publicly available. The main quantitative claim, however, depends on a one-sided Chamfer metric whose direction dependence is documented in the paper's own clinical results, and several details of the training/evaluation pipeline need clarification before the headline number can be taken at face value.

major comments (4)

[Section 3, Quantitative Results; Appendix B.2] The headline alignment error of 3.17 mm (Abstract: 3.2 mm) is measured as a one-sided median Chamfer distance from the segmentation surface to the model. Appendix B.2 reports a 2.0 mm asymmetry in the clinical cohort (median model-to-segmentation 3.9 mm versus segmentation-to-model 5.9 mm), which demonstrates that this metric can be substantially direction-dependent. The New Shape and New Pose test sets are reported only in the segmentation-to-model direction, so it is not established that the model achieves symmetric surface alignment on those sets. Please report both one-sided distances or a symmetric metric for the New Shape and New Pose sets, along with per-fold variation from the five non-overlapping test sets.
[Section 3, Clinical Cohort; Appendix B.2] The main text states 'the median segmentation-to-model Chamfer distance is 4.2 mm' for the clinical cohort, while Appendix B.2 states 'the segmentation-to-model alignment error is higher (5.9 mm)'. These numbers are inconsistent. Please clarify whether the 4.2 mm value is an average of per-subject medians, a pooled median, or a different subset, and reconcile the two reports.
[Section 2.2, Eq. (5); Introduction] The Introduction claims 'deriving exact coordinate transformations with inverse kinematics', but Eq. (5) unmaps each segmentation vertex using the inverse of a single joint transformation (G'_k)^{-1}. In linear blend skinning, the vertex transformation is a weighted combination of joint transformations, so the inverse of one joint's transformation is not the exact inverse of the blended transformation. Please specify how the joint k is selected (e.g., the joint with the largest skinning weight for the nearest model vertex) and justify the approximation, or provide the exact inverse skinning formula.
[Section 3, Data and Evaluation; Appendix B.2] The model is trained and evaluated against automatic fetal body segmentations from a UNet and automatic keypoints from a pretrained model, and Appendix B.2 acknowledges false positive segmentations (umbilical cord, placenta, maternal body) in the clinical cohort. The 3.2 mm error should therefore be stated as alignment to automatic segmentations, and the paper should report the accuracy of these segmentations against manual ground truth on at least a subset of cases, since the supervision quality directly determines what the alignment number means.

minor comments (6)

[Fig. 1 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'Fetal rave' should likely be 'Fetal model' or similar; please correct it.
[Fig. 2C caption] The caption reads 'Fetal model ourperforms baseline models'; 'ourperforms' should be 'outperforms'.
[Section 3, Data and Evaluation] The description 'we repeat the above data selection process to obtain five non-overlapping New Shape test sets' is ambiguous: if each of the five sets is a random 20% sample, they may overlap. Please clarify whether this is a five-fold partition, and if so, report the per-fold error range.
[Section 3, Quantitative Results] The reported median errors (3.01, 3.14, 3.17 mm) are given without confidence intervals or variance across the five folds; adding these would strengthen the evaluation.
[Section 2.2, Mean Canonical Shape] The step 'apply robust PCA [5] to the residuals to derive the shape blend shapes S' is underspecified: robust PCA typically returns a low-rank plus sparse decomposition, and it is not clear how the shape principal components are extracted from that output. Please provide the exact procedure.
[Abstract] The claim 'To our knowledge, this represents the first 3D articulated statistical fetal body model' would be more defensible with an explicit statement of the literature search scope and a discussion of any concurrent or closely related fetal body modeling work (e.g., recent fetal SMPL-like models) to avoid overclaiming.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fetal SMPL is trained on held-out subjects and the reported Chamfer errors are post-fit representation errors, not fits recycled as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity. It constructs a fetal SMPL model by coordinate-descent alternation between pose and canonical shape (Section 2), fitting the model to segmentations and keypoints from 53 subjects, then evaluates on held-out 'New Shape' and 'New Pose' subsets (Section 3). For a new subject, the paper explicitly re-registers the fixed model by optimizing per-subject shape and pose parameters against that subject's segmentations, then reports the one-sided segmentation-to-model Chamfer distance. The reported 3.17 mm / 3.2 mm figures are therefore representation errors after fitting, not forecasts of unseen segmentations from the model alone. This is a standard protocol for assessing whether a learned shape basis spans held-out subjects, and it does not reduce the prediction to a fitted input by construction. The anthropometric correlations with gestational age (HC, AC, FL, BL, BV) are external biological anchors not used in training or fitting, so they provide independent, falsifiable content. Self-citations appear for the segmentation UNet [4,11] and keypoint estimator [22,23,24], which come from the same research group, and these tools supply supervision inputs rather than load-bearing mathematical premises; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation. Appendix B.2 honestly documents false-positive segmentations (umbilical cord, placenta, maternal body) that inflate one-sided segmentation-to-model error in the clinical cohort; this is a data-quality and metric-direction concern, not a circularity concern. No equation is found that is equivalent to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Score 1 reflects the presence of minor self-citation that is not load-bearing.

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

The central claim rests on the assumption that a skinned linear model of the SMPL/SMIL type can represent fetal anatomy, that the supervision (segmentations and keypoints) is trustworthy, and that the unpose correspondence is valid. The model parameters themselves are learned from data; the hand-chosen regularization weights and the PCA dimensionality are the main free choices. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)

λk = 1.0
Keypoint weight in pose objectives Eq. (1)-(2), chosen by hand; reported in A.2.
λsmooth = 0.001
Temporal smoothness weight; hand-chosen.
λprior = 0.1
Pose prior weight; hand-chosen.
λshape = 0.1
Shape regularization weight in initialization.
λelast, λP, λJ = 5, 0.01, 0.01
Weights for elastic, blend-shape, and keypoint-regressor regularization in Eqs. (3)-(4), hand-chosen.
Number of shape PCs = 10
Chosen for fit-versus-smoothness trade-off; captures 98.3% variance (Section 3, Fig. 2B).

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The SMPL/SMIL parametric family (linear blend skinning, PCA shape space, fixed topology with 6890 vertices and 23 joints) can represent fetal body shape and pose sufficiently accurately.
The entire method wraps SMPL [12] and initializes from SMIL [7]; if fetal anatomy falls outside this family, the reported alignment error cannot be achieved.
domain assumption Skinning weights W and joint layout from the infant SMIL model transfer adequately to fetuses.
Training fixes SMIL's {Tbar, S, W} (Section 2.2, Initialization) and never relearns W; fetal motion is assumed to be expressible with these weights.
domain assumption The UNet-derived fetal body segmentations and the pre-trained keypoint model provide reliable supervision.
Section 3 states segmentations come from a UNet trained on curated ground truth [4,11] and keypoints from [22,23,24]. The model and its evaluation are only as good as these annotations.
domain assumption Nearest-neighbor correspondence in the unpose step (Eq. 5) gives a valid inverse mapping even when surfaces are incomplete or touching.
Step 3 maps each segmentation vertex to the nearest model vertex before inverse kinematics; wrong correspondences would corrupt canonical shapes, and the paper notes body parts often touch (Section 1).
standard math Robust PCA on the residual canonical shapes yields a meaningful low-dimensional shape space.
Robust PCA [5] is a standard method; the assumption is that the top 10 PCs capture clinically relevant shape variation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fetuses Made Simple: Modeling and Tracking of Fetal Shape and Pose." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5J56X4FJ

@misc{pith2026250617858,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fetuses Made Simple: Modeling and Tracking of Fetal Shape and Pose},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5J56X4FJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17858}
}

abstract

Analyzing fetal body motion and shape is paramount in prenatal diagnostics and monitoring. Existing methods for fetal MRI analysis mainly rely on anatomical keypoints or volumetric body segmentations. Keypoints simplify body structure to facilitate motion analysis, but may ignore important details of full-body shape. Body segmentations capture complete shape information but complicate temporal analysis due to large non-local fetal movements. To address these limitations, we construct a 3D articulated statistical fetal body model based on the Skinned Multi-Person Linear Model (SMPL). Our algorithm iteratively estimates body pose in the image space and body shape in the canonical pose space. This approach improves robustness to MRI motion artifacts and intensity distortions, and reduces the impact of incomplete surface observations due to challenging fetal poses. We train our model on segmentations and keypoints derived from $19,816$ MRI volumes across $53$ subjects. Our model captures body shape and motion across time series and provides intuitive visualization. Furthermore, it enables automated anthropometric measurements traditionally difficult to obtain from segmentations and keypoints. When tested on unseen fetal body shapes, our method yields a surface alignment error of $3.2$ mm for $3$ mm MRI voxel size. To our knowledge, this represents the first 3D articulated statistical fetal body model, paving the way for enhanced fetal motion and shape analysis in prenatal diagnostics. The code is available at https://github.com/MedicalVisionGroup/fetal-smpl .

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.17858 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Fetal rave. We learn a 3D articulated statistical fetal body shape model from 20k volumes of MRI time series in 53 subjects. (A): 3D MRI time series with fetal body segmentations. (B): Model aligned to volumetric frames in A. (C): Overview of our model aligned to all volumes in our dataset. 3D MRI is an established solution that visualizes fetal anatomy fully in 3D. Recent advances in machine learning have enabled a… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Alignment error statistics. (A) Alignment error decreases as we train the model for more iterations., and plateaus after 3 iterations. Model generalizes well to new shapes and new poses. (B) Alignment error declines as we use more PCs. The improvement after 12th PC is marginal. (C) Fetal model ourperforms baseline models. then registered to the clinical cohort to measure anthropometric measurements. To quantitativel… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Inter-subject shape differences and population-level shape PCs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Inter-subject shape differences (additional results) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Model-derived anthropometric measurements and GA. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Alignment error in clinical cohort. GA. A large sample size and rigorous statistical testing are needed to assess the significance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Anthropometric measurements and gestational age in research and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Alignment error as a function of iterations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Alignment error as a function of number of principal components. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[1]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Alldieck, T., Magnor, M., Xu, W., Theobalt, C., Pons-Moll, G.: Video based re- construction of 3d people models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 8387–8397 (2018)

2018
[2]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Barron, J.T.: A general and adaptive robust loss function. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 4331–4339 (2019)

work page 2019
[3]

IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (2024)

Billot, B., Dey, N., Moyer, D., Hoffmann, M., Turk, E.A., Gagoski, B., Grant, P.E., Golland, P.: SE(3)-equivariant and noise-invariant 3D rigid motion tracking in brain MRI. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (2024)

work page 2024
[4]

In: Medical Imaging with Deep Learn- ing (2024) 10 Y

Billot, B., Dey, N., Turk, E.A., Grant, E., Golland, P.: Network conditioning for synergistic learning on partial annotations. In: Medical Imaging with Deep Learn- ing (2024) 10 Y. Liu et al

work page 2024
[5]

Candès, E.J., Li, X., Ma, Y., Wright, J.: Robust principal component analysis? Journal of the ACM (JACM)58(3), 1–37 (2011)

work page 2011
[6]

Dynamic Neural Fields for Learning Atlases of 4D Fetal MRI Time-series

Chi, Z., Cong, Z., Wang, C.J., Liu, Y., Turk, E.A., Grant, P.E., Abulnaga, S.M., Golland, P., Dey, N.: Dynamic neural fields for learning atlases of 4d fetal mri time-series. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.02874 (2023)

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[7]

IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence42(10), 2540–2551 (2019)

Hesse, N., Pujades, S., Black, M.J., Arens, M., Hofmann, U.G., Schroeder, A.S.: Learning and tracking the 3d body shape of freely moving infants from rgb-d sequences. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence42(10), 2540–2551 (2019)

work page 2019
[8]

In: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2018: 21st International Conference, Granada, Spain, September 16-20, 2018, Proceed- ings, Part I

Hesse, N., Pujades, S., Romero, J., Black, M.J., Bodensteiner, C., Arens, M., Hof- mann, U.G., Tacke, U., Hadders-Algra, M., Weinberger, R., et al.: Learning an infant body model from rgb-d data for accurate full body motion analysis. In: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2018: 21st International Conference, Granada, Spain,...

work page 2018

Show all 24 references

[9]

org/10.5281/zenodo.10013305, https://github.com/eth-ait/aitviewer

Kaufmann, M., Vechev, V., Mylonopoulos, D.: aitviewer (7 2022).https://doi. org/10.5281/zenodo.10013305, https://github.com/eth-ait/aitviewer

2022 doi
[10]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014)

Kingma, D.P.: Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014)

2014 arXiv
[11]

In: International Workshop on Preterm, Perinatal and Paediatric Image Analysis

Liu, Y., Karani, N., Abulnaga, S.M., Xu, J., Grant, P.E., Abaci Turk, E., Golland, P.: Consistency regularization improves placenta segmentation in fetal epi mri time series. In: International Workshop on Preterm, Perinatal and Paediatric Image Analysis. pp. 77–87. Springer (2023)

2023
[12]

In: Seminal Graphics Papers: Pushing the Boundaries, Volume 2, pp

Loper, M., Mahmood, N., Romero, J., Pons-Moll, G., Black, M.J.: Smpl: A skinned multi-person linear model. In: Seminal Graphics Papers: Pushing the Boundaries, Volume 2, pp. 851–866 (2023)

2023
[13]

In: Seminal graphics: pioneering efforts that shaped the field, pp

Lorensen, W.E., Cline, H.E.: Marching cubes: A high resolution 3d surface con- struction algorithm. In: Seminal graphics: pioneering efforts that shaped the field, pp. 347–353 (1998)

1998
[14]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Pavlakos, G., Choutas, V., Ghorbani, N., Bolkart, T., Osman, A.A., Tzionas, D., Black, M.J.: Expressive body capture: 3d hands, face, and body from a single im- age. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 10975–10985 (2019)

2019
[15]

arXiv:2007.08501 (2020)

Ravi,N.,Reizenstein,J.,Novotny,D.,Gordon,T.,Lo,W.Y.,Johnson,J.,Gkioxari, G.: Accelerating 3d deep learning with pytorch3d. arXiv:2007.08501 (2020)

2020 arXiv
[16]

Circulation 145(15), 1108–1119 (2022)

Sadhwani, A., Wypij, D., Rofeberg, V., Gholipour, A., Mittleman, M., Rohde, J., Velasco-Annis, C., Calderon, J., Friedman, K.G., Tworetzky, W., et al.: Fetal brain volume predicts neurodevelopment in congenital heart disease. Circulation 145(15), 1108–1119 (2022)

2022
[17]

Journal of Perinatal Medicine45(6), 737–743 (2017)

Sajapala, S., AboEllail, M.A.M., Kanenishi, K., Mori, N., Marumo, G., Hata, T.: 4d ultrasound study of fetal movement early in the second trimester of pregnancy. Journal of Perinatal Medicine45(6), 737–743 (2017)

2017
[18]

Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology: The Official Journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology4(1), 34–48 (1994)

Snijders, R., Nicolaides, K.: Fetal biometry at 14–40 weeks’ gestation. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology: The Official Journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology4(1), 34–48 (1994)

1994
[19]

Scientific Reports14(1), 6637 (2024) Fetuses Made Simple: Modeling and Tracking of Fetal Shape and Pose 11

Uus, A.U., Hall, M., Grigorescu, I., Avena Zampieri, C., Egloff Collado, A., Payette, K., Matthew, J., Kyriakopoulou, V., Hajnal, J.V., Hutter, J., et al.: Automated body organ segmentation, volumetry and population-averaged atlas for 3d motion- corrected t2-weighted fetal bod...

2024
[20]

Developmental neuro- science 45(3), 105–114 (2023)

Vasung, L., Xu, J., Abaci-Turk, E., Zhou, C., Holland, E., Barth, W.H., Barnewolt, C., Connolly, S., Estroff, J., Golland, P., et al.: Cross-sectional observational study of typical in utero fetal movements using machine learning. Developmental neuro- science 45(3), 105–114 (2023)

2023
[21]

In: Proceedings of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine

Xu, J., Turk, E.A., Gagoski, B., Golland, P., Grant, P.E., Adalsteinsson, E.: Motion analysis in fetal mri using deep pose estimator. In: Proceedings of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine... Scientific Meeting and Exhibition. International Society for...

2021
[22]

Xu, J., Zhang, M., Turk, E.A., Grant, P.E., Golland, P., Adalsteinsson, E.: 3d fetal pose estimation with adaptive variance and conditional generative adversar- ial network. In: Medical Ultrasound, and Preterm, Perinatal and Paediatric Image Analysis:FirstInternationalWorkshop...

2020
[23]

In: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention– MICCAI 2019: 22nd International Conference, Shenzhen, China, October 13–17, 2019, Proceedings, Part IV 22

Xu, J., Zhang, M., Turk, E.A., Zhang, L., Grant, P.E., Ying, K., Golland, P., Adal- steinsson, E.: Fetal pose estimation in volumetric mri using a 3d convolution neu- ral network. In: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention– MICCAI 2019: 22nd International C...

2019
[24]

In: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2020: 23rd International Conference, Lima, Peru, October 4–8, 2020, Proceedings, Part VI 23

Zhang, M., Xu, J., Abaci Turk, E., Grant, P.E., Golland, P., Adalsteinsson, E.: Enhanced detection of fetal pose in 3d mri by deep reinforcement learning with physical structure priors on anatomy. In: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2020: 23rd...

2020

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Alldieck, T., Magnor, M., Xu, W., Theobalt, C., Pons-Moll, G.: Video based re- construction of 3d people models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 8387–8397 (2018)

2018

[2] [2]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Barron, J.T.: A general and adaptive robust loss function. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 4331–4339 (2019)

work page 2019

[3] [3]

IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (2024)

Billot, B., Dey, N., Moyer, D., Hoffmann, M., Turk, E.A., Gagoski, B., Grant, P.E., Golland, P.: SE(3)-equivariant and noise-invariant 3D rigid motion tracking in brain MRI. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (2024)

work page 2024

[4] [4]

In: Medical Imaging with Deep Learn- ing (2024) 10 Y

Billot, B., Dey, N., Turk, E.A., Grant, E., Golland, P.: Network conditioning for synergistic learning on partial annotations. In: Medical Imaging with Deep Learn- ing (2024) 10 Y. Liu et al

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Candès, E.J., Li, X., Ma, Y., Wright, J.: Robust principal component analysis? Journal of the ACM (JACM)58(3), 1–37 (2011)

work page 2011

[6] [6]

Dynamic Neural Fields for Learning Atlases of 4D Fetal MRI Time-series

Chi, Z., Cong, Z., Wang, C.J., Liu, Y., Turk, E.A., Grant, P.E., Abulnaga, S.M., Golland, P., Dey, N.: Dynamic neural fields for learning atlases of 4d fetal mri time-series. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.02874 (2023)

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[7] [7]

IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence42(10), 2540–2551 (2019)

Hesse, N., Pujades, S., Black, M.J., Arens, M., Hofmann, U.G., Schroeder, A.S.: Learning and tracking the 3d body shape of freely moving infants from rgb-d sequences. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence42(10), 2540–2551 (2019)

work page 2019

[8] [8]

In: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2018: 21st International Conference, Granada, Spain, September 16-20, 2018, Proceed- ings, Part I

Hesse, N., Pujades, S., Romero, J., Black, M.J., Bodensteiner, C., Arens, M., Hof- mann, U.G., Tacke, U., Hadders-Algra, M., Weinberger, R., et al.: Learning an infant body model from rgb-d data for accurate full body motion analysis. In: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2018: 21st International Conference, Granada, Spain,...

work page 2018