3D Heart Reconstruction from Sparse Pose-agnostic 2D Echocardiographic Slices

Dong Ni; Jinhua Chen; Wei Zhuo; Wufeng Xue; Zhurong Chen

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 24 references

3D Heart Reconstruction from Sparse Pose-agnostic 2D Echocardiographic Slices

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Echo3D reconstructs a personalized 3D heart from six standard 2D echo slices without knowing their 3D positions, cutting LV volume error from 20.24% to 1.98%.

desk verdict Echo3D is a genuinely new pose-agnostic 3D echo reconstruction method, but the clinical volume claims rest on a circular synthetic evaluation and are not yet backed by real-ultrasound validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02411 v1 pith:ABHKF3NH submitted 2025-07-03 eess.IV cs.CV

Zhurong Chen , Jinhua Chen , Wei Zhuo , Wufeng Xue , Dong Ni This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.IVcs.CV

keywords 3Dheartreconstructionechocardiographyimplicitneuralrepresentationposeestimationleftventriclevolumerightsparse2Dslicescardiacultrasound

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

The paper claims that the six 2D echocardiographic views routinely acquired in clinical practice contain enough information to reconstruct a personalized 3D heart model, even when the 3D position and orientation of the slices are unknown. Its method, Echo3D, alternately estimates the pose of each slice and fits an implicit neural field to the segmented heart structures, deforming a statistical shape prior into the individual anatomy. On CT-derived heart meshes, the reconstructed model estimates left-ventricle volume with 1.98% error (versus 20.24% for Simpson's biplane) and estimates right-ventricle volume with about 5.7% error, a quantity that conventional 2D echo cannot provide. The authors also report reconstruction overlaps above 95% for LV and epicardium on the virtual dataset, and above 84% for the more complex RV.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is an implicit neural representation (an MLP with positional encoding) that maps any 3D coordinate to a scalar in [−1, 1], with 0 marking the heart surface. Alongside it, each 2D slice carries a pose parameter π = {P0, n, Δv, Δu, s} — reference point, normal vector, in-plane translations, and scale — that the optimization adjusts. The two are updated in alternation: pose update aligns the slices to the current shape, shape update fits the neural field to the posed slices, with a margin-based reconstruction loss and a gradient-magnitude smoothness term. This joint estimation is what removes the need for accurate slice positions.

What would settle it

Take a cohort of patients who have both a real clinical 2D echo study and an independent 3D volume measurement (from 3D echo, MRI, or CT). Apply Echo3D to segmentations from the real echo planes and compare the predicted LV and RV volumes to the independent reference. If the errors are close to the synthetic claims (≈2% LV, ≈6% RV), the claim stands; if they are multiples of those numbers, the synthetic proxy does not transfer.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the 3D pose of sparse, segmented 2D echo planes and the 3D heart shape can be solved jointly by alternating two optimizations: first, given the current shape, adjust each slice's pose (reference point, normal, translation, scale) so its cross-section matches the reconstructed anatomy; second, given the poses, update the implicit neural representation so its zero level set fits all slices. Starting from a prior 3D heart shape, this loop progressively personalizes the model. The claim is that six clinically standard planes suffice: with all six, LV volume error drops to 1.98% on the real mesh dataset and RV volume error to 5.73%, both far below the biplane method's LV error of 20.24% and beyond what conventional 2D analysis can deliver for the RV.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative accuracy is measured on 2D slices synthesized from CT-derived 3D heart meshes, assuming those synthetic slices faithfully represent real clinical echo planes, including segmentation quality and ultrasound artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

With six standard echo views, clinicians could obtain a personalized 3D heart model without 3D ultrasound hardware or probe tracking.
Right-ventricle volume—routinely unavailable from 2D echo—becomes computable from the same views, with reported error around 5.7%.
The reconstructed mesh enables downstream 3D analyses such as wall thickness, remodeling, and strain estimation directly from 2D echo.
Echo3D outperforms the OReX baseline even though OReX requires known slice positions, indicating that pose-agnostic joint optimization is a key advantage.

Reading between the lines

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

If the synthetic-to-real transfer holds, this paradigm could democratize 3D cardiac quantification in settings that lack 3D transducers, since it relies only on standard 2D views already acquired.
The alternating pose-shape optimization may generalize to other sparse-slice modalities—fetal ultrasound, prostate, or musculoskeletal imaging—where slice geometry is not recorded.
A direct stress test would be to feed the method deliberately misaligned or rotated slices and measure how much pose error it tolerates; the paper does not report this breakdown.
The authors do not quantify uncertainty in the reconstructed volumes; clinical adoption would likely require per-patient confidence intervals rather than point estimates.

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

Echo3D is worth reading because it combines slice pose estimation with implicit neural reconstruction for a real clinical problem, but the paper's central claim—that it accurately estimates LV and RV volumes from six standard echo views—is not supported by the experiments as designed.

The novel bit is the alternating optimization: you start from a statistical shape prior, estimate the 3D pose of each 2D structure slice, update the implicit neural field to fit the slices, and iterate. That is a reasonable and actually new combination, and the authors are honest that segmentation is assumed solved. They also compare against OReX, which takes known positions, and show competitive or better reconstruction, which suggests the pose estimation is doing something.

The soft spot is the evaluation. Almost everything quantitative comes from slices cut from CT-derived meshes. The same 20 meshes generate the statistical shape model, the synthetic test slices, and the ground truth volumes. So the reported 1.98% LV and 5.73% RV errors measure how well the pipeline can re-fit a prior to contours extracted from that same prior's distribution—not how it will do on real echo images with speckle, shadowing, segmentation errors, and unknown out-of-plane motion. The real-ultrasound section shows only three subjects and no volume numbers, so the clinical breakthrough claim hangs on a surrogate that hasn't been shown to be faithful.

There are also smaller issues: no error bars or standard deviations in the tables, no code release, and the implementation details are thin in places (MLP architecture, optimizer hyperparameters, pose initialization are described only loosely). None of these are fatal by themselves, but combined they make it hard to reproduce or trust the numbers.

The stress-test note is right on the circularity, and I don't think that's a manufactured concern—it is the load-bearing assumption of the whole quantitative story.

That said, the method itself is plausible and the problem is important. This is the kind of paper that deserves a serious referee: it should not be desk-rejected, but a competent referee should send it back for major revision. The authors need to either validate on real ultrasound with reference volumes (from MRI or 3D echo) or redesign the synthetic experiment so the prior and test slices come from genuinely independent populations, and report error bars either way.

If I were an editor, I'd send it out. I wouldn't cite the volume numbers yet.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Echo3D, a framework that jointly estimates the 3D poses of 2D echocardiographic slices and reconstructs a personalized 3D heart model using an implicit neural representation, with the goal of estimating LV and RV volumes from sparse clinical echo views. The method alternates between pose optimization and shape optimization, initialized from a prior 3D heart shape. Experiments are reported on 20 CT-derived heart meshes (labeled 'Real') and 40 SSM-generated virtual meshes derived from those same 20, from which six 2D slices are synthesized; the paper reports volume errors of 1.98% for LV and 5.73% for RV with six planes, plus qualitative results on three real ultrasound subjects.

Significance. If validated on real ultrasound with independent reference volumes, the idea of joint pose estimation and INR-based reconstruction from sparse clinical views would be a useful contribution to cardiac imaging, particularly for RV volume estimation, where 2D methods are known to be weak. The paper formulates a coherent optimization problem and provides an alternative to position-aware methods. However, the current evaluation does not establish the clinical claims: all quantitative metrics are computed on synthetic slices derived from the same meshes used as ground truth and as the shape-prior source, and real-echo evaluation is qualitative only. The reported accuracy therefore cannot be interpreted as predictive of clinical performance.

major comments (4)

[Section 4.1, Tables 1-2] The quantitative evaluation is self-referential. The six 2D slices are generated from the same 3D heart meshes that serve as ground truth for IOU, Chamfer distance, and volume error, and the SSM-based virtual mesh cohort is itself built from the same 20 CT-derived meshes. The reported 1.98% LV and 5.73% RV errors therefore measure how well the reconstruction recovers the generating mesh from its own cross-sections, not how well the method generalizes to independently acquired clinical data. This directly undermines the abstract's comparative claim against the biplane method and the stated 'breakthrough' for RV volume estimation.
[Section 5.3] The real ultrasound evaluation is qualitative only. The manuscript reports reconstructed visualizations for three subjects and provides no volume measurements, reference comparisons, or error metrics. Consequently, the statement that the method 'can well reconstruct the 3D heart model' from real echo images is not supported by quantitative evidence, and the clinical applicability claimed in the abstract is not established.
[Tables 1 and 2] No measure of variability is reported. All IOU, Chamfer distance, and volume errors are single-point estimates without standard deviations, confidence intervals, or per-case distributions. With n=20 and n=40, the reported advantages (e.g., 1.98% vs 20.24% for LV volume) could be driven by outliers; without this information, the comparison to Simpson's biplane and OReX is not statistically grounded.
[Section 3.4, Tables 1-2] The paper's novelty lies in pose-agnostic reconstruction, but no pose estimation error is reported. Because the synthetic slices are generated with known poses, the authors could report the error of estimated π relative to ground truth. Without such a report, it is unclear whether the alternating optimization recovers correct geometry or merely converges to a self-consistent but anatomically misaligned solution.

minor comments (3)

[Tables 1 and 2] The 'Real' label is misleading: the data are CT-derived heart meshes, not real ultrasound images. Rename to 'CT' or 'Mesh' to avoid overstating the clinical relevance.
[Throughout] There are several typos: 'echocadiography' in the Conclusion, 'ehco' in Section 1, 'reconstrcution' in Section 1, and 'position-agnoistic' in the contributions list; also 'eclipse-shaped disks' in Section 1 should be 'ellipse-shaped'.
[Section 3.2] The initialization of the prior 3D heart shape is not described. Please specify how the prior is constructed and whether it is independent of the test meshes; this is relevant to the circularity concern raised above.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Quantitative LV/RV volume claims rest on slices synthesized from the same CT meshes that supply ground truth and the SSM prior; real-echo validation is qualitative only.

self definitional [Sec. 4.1 (Dataset), Tables 1–2]
"In this study, we utilize two datasets of 3D heart models with four chambers to generate the six sparse 2D slices and to evaluate the reconstruction performance."

The same 3D meshes are used both to synthesize the 2D input slices and to define the ground-truth volumes in Tables 1–2; the 'Real' rows are CT meshes, not real ultrasound. The quantitative experiment is therefore a round-trip: exact, noiseless cross-sections of the target mesh are fed in, and the volume of that same mesh is measured. The abstract's 1.98% LV and 5.73% RV errors thus quantify slice-to-mesh interpolation consistency, not prediction from independent 2D echo data, so the central quantitative claim reduces to the slice-generation setup by construction.
fitted input called prediction [Sec. 4.1 (Virtual dataset), Sec. 5.2 (Table 2)]
"Virtual Synthetic Heart Meshes This dataset comprises 1000 synthetic four-chamber heart models that are generated using a Statistical Shape Model (SSM) from the above 20 meshes. The variation includes differences in chamber volumes, wall thicknesses. We randomly selected 40 models from this dataset."

The SSM prior is fitted to the same 20 CT meshes that constitute the 'Real' test cohort, and the 'Virtual' test meshes are sampled from that same SSM. Since reconstruction is initialized from and constrained by this prior (Sec. 3.2, 3.5), the volume predictions on both datasets are partially a retrieval of the fitted shape distribution, not out-of-sample measurement. The paper reports no held-out CT or ultrasound cohort for volume numbers, so the 1.98%/5.73% errors are in-sample for the prior and statistically coupled to the fitted input.

full rationale

The core optimization (joint pose estimation with implicit neural reconstruction, Eq. 1–3) is not itself circular: the slice poses are genuinely unknown and are optimized, and the loss compares reconstructed cross-sections to input slices. The circularity is in the empirical support for the headline clinical claims. Sec. 4.1 builds the two test datasets by slicing 3D heart meshes and evaluating against those same meshes: the 'Real' test is 20 CT-derived meshes, and the 'Virtual' test is 40 meshes sampled from an SSM fitted to those same 20 meshes. Consequently the input 2D slices are exact projections of the ground-truth volumes, and the shape prior is trained on the test population. The abstract's 1.98% LV / 5.73% RV errors and the RV 'breakthrough' claim are therefore supported only by a self-referential, in-sample evaluation. Sec. 5.3 applies the method to real ultrasound for just three subjects with no volume numbers or reference comparison, so no independent real-echo quantitative evidence is provided. No load-bearing self-citation is involved: references [18] and [21] appear in related-work/segmentation context and do not carry the derivation. I score 6 because one or more central 'predictions' reduce to the fitted prior and to a round-trip slice-generation setup, but the pose-estimation machinery prevents this from being a complete identity (score 8–10).

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on two self-referential inputs: the test slices are extracted from the ground-truth meshes, and the shape prior comes from the same cohort. No independent clinical validation is provided, so the paper's contribution is a plausible algorithm with unverified clinical performance.

free parameters (3)

Slice pose initialization (P0, n, Δv, Δu, s)
Each slice starts from a pose chosen from prior knowledge of heart shape; no values or ranges are reported, and the final result depends on this initialization.
Regularization weight λ and gradient threshold α in Eq. 5
These hyperparameters control the smoothness term; their values are not given in Sec. 3.5.
MLP architecture and optimizer hyperparameters
Number of layers, hidden units, positional encoding frequencies, learning rate, and number of iterations are not specified, so the central reconstruction quality depends on unstated settings.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Slices synthesized from CT-derived meshes faithfully represent clinical echo planes.
All quantitative results in Sec. 4 and Tables 1-2 use slices generated from 3D heart meshes, not real echo images, so the method's clinical accuracy is not tested.
domain assumption The statistical shape model built from the same 20-mesh cohort is a valid prior and does not leak target geometry.
The virtual test set is generated from the same 20 meshes that form the basis of the prior and the 'Real' test set, so the prior is population-matched by construction.
domain assumption Accurate segmentation of echo planes is available, and segmentation errors do not affect reconstruction.
The paper relies on existing segmentation models (Sec. 3.1) but provides no segmentation accuracy analysis or ablation.
ad hoc to paper The alternating optimization converges from the chosen initialization.
No convergence analysis, initialization sensitivity study, or ablation is reported, yet the method's success depends on this.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 3D Heart Reconstruction from Sparse Pose-agnostic 2D Echocardiographic Slices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ABHKF3NH

@misc{pith2026250702411,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 3D Heart Reconstruction from Sparse Pose-agnostic 2D Echocardiographic Slices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ABHKF3NH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02411}
}

read the original abstract

Echocardiography (echo) plays an indispensable role in the clinical practice of heart diseases. However, ultrasound imaging typically provides only two-dimensional (2D) cross-sectional images from a few specific views, making it challenging to interpret and inaccurate for estimation of clinical parameters like the volume of left ventricle (LV). 3D ultrasound imaging provides an alternative for 3D quantification, but is still limited by the low spatial and temporal resolution and the highly demanding manual delineation. To address these challenges, we propose an innovative framework for reconstructing personalized 3D heart anatomy from 2D echo slices that are frequently used in clinical practice. Specifically, a novel 3D reconstruction pipeline is designed, which alternatively optimizes between the 3D pose estimation of these 2D slices and the 3D integration of these slices using an implicit neural network, progressively transforming a prior 3D heart shape into a personalized 3D heart model. We validate the method with two datasets. When six planes are used, the reconstructed 3D heart can lead to a significant improvement for LV volume estimation over the bi-plane method (error in percent: 1.98\% VS. 20.24\%). In addition, the whole reconstruction framework makes even an important breakthrough that can estimate RV volume from 2D echo slices (with an error of 5.75\% ). This study provides a new way for personalized 3D structure and function analysis from cardiac ultrasound and is of great potential in clinical practice.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02411 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The new paradigm consists of four stages: 1) acquisition of multiple 2D echo images, 2) segmentation of heart structures from these planes, 3) joint pose estimation and 3D heart reconstruction, and 4) 3D analysis for LV and RV volumes. ×3 Implicit neural representation 3D Point Set Generator Slice Φ𝜃 Reconstructed Heart Resampled Slices Original Slices Loss 𝜋 = { 𝑷𝟎,𝒏, Δ𝑣, Δ𝑢, 𝑠} [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** 3D heart reconstruction from position-agonistic 2D slices. 3 Methodology 3.1 New Paradigm for 3D Cardiac Analysis We present a new paradigm for 3D cardiac structure and function analysis from ultrasound imaging (Fig.1), which includes 1) imaging of multiple 2D echo planes, 2) segmentation of these 2D planes, 3) 3D heart reconstruction from the segmented results, and 4) 3D quantification and analysis. For 2D echo pla… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The point set generator (top) and the implicit neural representation network (bottom) used in our reconstruction. slice Sj given the previous reconstructed model Φθ k−1 , the objective is: {π1, · · · , πN } k = minimize{π1,··· ,πN } X N j=1 X xi∈Sj L(Φθ k−1 (xi), zi) (3) This optimization involves adjusting the orientation with the normal vector, scaling the plane via s, and translating its position using ∆u and ∆v.… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[1]

In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention

Chen, H., Gao, Y., Zhang, S., Wu, J., Ma, Y., Zheng, R.: Rocosdf: Row-column scanned neural signed distance fields for freehand 3d ultrasound imaging shape reconstruction. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. pp. 721–731. Springer (2024)

work page 2024
[2]

Cardiovascular Imaging 14(11), 2091–2104 (2021)

Chiou, Y.A., Hung, C.L., Lin, S.F.: Ai-assisted echocardiographic prescreening of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction on the basis of intrabeat dynamics. Cardiovascular Imaging 14(11), 2091–2104 (2021)

work page 2021
[3]

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

Fan, H., Su, H., Guibas, L.J.: A point set generation network for 3d object recon- struction from a single image. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 605–613 (2017)

work page 2017
[4]

Medical Image Analysis94, 103146 (2024)

Freitas, J., Gomes-Fonseca, J., Tonelli, A.C., Correia-Pinto, J., Fonseca, J.C., Queirós, S.: Automatic multi-view pose estimation in focused cardiac ultrasound. Medical Image Analysis94, 103146 (2024)

work page 2024
[5]

American heart journal 121(3), 864–871 (1991)

Kircher, B., Abbott, J.A., Pau, S., Gould, R.G., Himelman, R.B., Higgins, C.B., Lipton, M.J., Schiller, N.B.: Left atrial volume determination by biplane two- dimensional echocardiography: validation by cine computed tomography. American heart journal 121(3), 864–871 (1991)

work page 1991
[6]

Medical image analysis 83, 102653 (2023)

Laumer, F., Amrani, M., Manduchi, L., Beuret, A., Rubi, L., Dubatovka, A., Matter, C.M., Buhmann, J.M.: Weakly supervised inference of personalized heart meshes based on echocardiography videos. Medical image analysis 83, 102653 (2023)

2023
[7]

Laumer, F., Rubi, L., Matter, M., Buoso, S., Fringeli, G., Mach, F., Ruschitzka, F., Buhmann, J., Matter, C.: Fully automated 4d cardiac modelling from 2d echocar- diography for clinical applications (2023)

work page 2023
[8]

Medical image analysis67, 101873 (2021)

Liu, F., Wang, K., Liu, D., Yang, X., Tian, J.: Deep pyramid local attention neural network for cardiac structure segmentation in two-dimensional echocardiography. Medical image analysis67, 101873 (2021)

work page 2021

Show all 24 references

[9]

Ma, Z., Shen, C., Zhu, H., Zhou, Y., Liu, Y., Yi, S., Dong, L., Zhao, W., Brady, D., Cao, X., et al.: Cardiacfield: Computational echocardiography for universal screening (2023)

2023
[10]

Commu- nications of the ACM65(1), 99–106 (2021)

Mildenhall, B., Srinivasan, P.P., Tancik, M., Barron, J.T., Ramamoorthi, R., Ng, R.: Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis. Commu- nications of the ACM65(1), 99–106 (2021)

2021
[11]

Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography32(1), 1–64 (2019)

Mitchell,C.,Rahko,P.S.,Blauwet,L.A.,Canaday,B.,Finstuen,J.A.,Foster,M.C., Horton, K., Ogunyankin, K.O., Palma, R.A., Velazquez, E.J.: Guidelines for per- forming a comprehensive transthoracic echocardiographic examination in adults: recommendations from the american society of...

2019
[12]

IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 41(10), 2867–2878 (2022) 10 Chen et al

Painchaud, N., Duchateau, N., Bernard, O., Jodoin, P.M.: Echocardiography seg- mentation with enforced temporal consistency. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 41(10), 2867–2878 (2022) 10 Chen et al

2022
[13]

PLoS computational biology 17(4), e1008851 (2021)

Rodero, C., Strocchi, M., Marciniak, M., Longobardi, S., Whitaker, J., O’Neill, M.D., Gillette, K., Augustin, C., Plank, G., Vigmond, E.J., et al.: Linking statisti- cal shape models and simulated function in the healthy adult human heart. PLoS computational biology 17(4), e10...

2021
[14]

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

Sawdayee, H., Vaxman, A., Bermano, A.H.: Orex: Object reconstruction from pla- nar cross-sections using neural fields. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 20854–20862 (2023)

2023
[15]

Advances in neural information processing systems 33, 7462–7473 (2020)

Sitzmann, V., Martel, J., Bergman, A., Lindell, D., Wetzstein, G.: Implicit neural representations with periodic activation functions. Advances in neural information processing systems 33, 7462–7473 (2020)

2020
[16]

In: Inter- national Workshop on Advances in Simplifying Medical Ultrasound

Stojanovski, D., Hermida, U., Muffoletto, M., Lamata, P., Beqiri, A., Gomez, A.: Efficient pix2vox++ for 3d cardiac reconstruction from 2d echo views. In: Inter- national Workshop on Advances in Simplifying Medical Ultrasound. pp. 86–95. Springer (2022)

2022
[17]

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

Unberath, M., Maier, A., Fleischmann, D., Hornegger, J., Fahrig, R.: Open-source 4d statistical shape model of the heart for x-ray projection imaging. In: 2015 IEEE 12th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI). pp. 739–742. IEEE (2015)

2015
[18]

Medical Image Analysis 84, 102686 (2023)

Wei, H., Ma, J., Zhou, Y., Xue, W., Ni, D.: Co-learning of appearance and shape for precise ejection fraction estimation from echocardiographic sequences. Medical Image Analysis 84, 102686 (2023)

2023
[19]

In: Medical Imaging with Deep Learning

Wysocki, M., Azampour, M.F., Eilers, C., Busam, B., Salehi, M., Navab, N.: Ultra- nerf: Neural radiance fields for ultrasound imaging. In: Medical Imaging with Deep Learning. pp. 382–401. PMLR (2024)

2024
[20]

IEEE transactions on medical imaging42(6), 1707–1719 (2023)

Xu, J., Moyer, D., Gagoski, B., Iglesias, J.E., Grant, P.E., Golland, P., Adalsteins- son, E.: Nesvor: implicit neural representation for slice-to-volume reconstruction in mri. IEEE transactions on medical imaging42(6), 1707–1719 (2023)

2023
[21]

IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 40(7), 1950–1961 (2021)

Yang, X., Dou, H., Huang, R., Xue, W., Huang, Y., Qian, J., Zhang, Y., Luo, H., Guo,H.,Wang,T.,etal.:Agentwithwarmstartandadaptivedynamictermination for plane localization in 3d ultrasound. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 40(7), 1950–1961 (2021)

2021
[22]

Medical Image Analysis72, 102119 (2021)

Yang, X., Huang, Y., Huang, R., Dou, H., Li, R., Qian, J., Huang, X., Shi, W., Chen, C., Zhang, Y., et al.: Searching collaborative agents for multi-plane local- ization in 3d ultrasound. Medical Image Analysis72, 102119 (2021)

2021
[23]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.12108 (2021)

Yeung, P.H., Hesse, L., Aliasi, M., Haak, M., Xie, W., Namburete, A.I., et al.: Im- plicitvol:Sensorless3dultrasoundreconstructionwithdeepimplicitrepresentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.12108 (2021)

2021 arXiv
[24]

Journal of the Operations Research Society of China8(2), 311–340 (2020)

Zhang, H.M., Dong, B.: A review on deep learning in medical image reconstruction. Journal of the Operations Research Society of China8(2), 311–340 (2020)

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention

Chen, H., Gao, Y., Zhang, S., Wu, J., Ma, Y., Zheng, R.: Rocosdf: Row-column scanned neural signed distance fields for freehand 3d ultrasound imaging shape reconstruction. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. pp. 721–731. Springer (2024)

work page 2024

[2] [2]

Cardiovascular Imaging 14(11), 2091–2104 (2021)

Chiou, Y.A., Hung, C.L., Lin, S.F.: Ai-assisted echocardiographic prescreening of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction on the basis of intrabeat dynamics. Cardiovascular Imaging 14(11), 2091–2104 (2021)

work page 2021

[3] [3]

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

Fan, H., Su, H., Guibas, L.J.: A point set generation network for 3d object recon- struction from a single image. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 605–613 (2017)

work page 2017

[4] [4]

Medical Image Analysis94, 103146 (2024)

Freitas, J., Gomes-Fonseca, J., Tonelli, A.C., Correia-Pinto, J., Fonseca, J.C., Queirós, S.: Automatic multi-view pose estimation in focused cardiac ultrasound. Medical Image Analysis94, 103146 (2024)

work page 2024

[5] [5]

American heart journal 121(3), 864–871 (1991)

Kircher, B., Abbott, J.A., Pau, S., Gould, R.G., Himelman, R.B., Higgins, C.B., Lipton, M.J., Schiller, N.B.: Left atrial volume determination by biplane two- dimensional echocardiography: validation by cine computed tomography. American heart journal 121(3), 864–871 (1991)

work page 1991

[6] [6]

Medical image analysis 83, 102653 (2023)

Laumer, F., Amrani, M., Manduchi, L., Beuret, A., Rubi, L., Dubatovka, A., Matter, C.M., Buhmann, J.M.: Weakly supervised inference of personalized heart meshes based on echocardiography videos. Medical image analysis 83, 102653 (2023)

2023

[7] [7]

Laumer, F., Rubi, L., Matter, M., Buoso, S., Fringeli, G., Mach, F., Ruschitzka, F., Buhmann, J., Matter, C.: Fully automated 4d cardiac modelling from 2d echocar- diography for clinical applications (2023)

work page 2023

[8] [8]

Medical image analysis67, 101873 (2021)

Liu, F., Wang, K., Liu, D., Yang, X., Tian, J.: Deep pyramid local attention neural network for cardiac structure segmentation in two-dimensional echocardiography. Medical image analysis67, 101873 (2021)

work page 2021