UltraTwin: Towards Cardiac Anatomical Twin Generation from Multi-view 2D Ultrasound

Ang Zhang; Binghan Li; Dingxin Zhang; Dong Ni; Feng Geng; Haoran Dou; Jingxian Xu; Junxuan Yu; Liping Liu; Qiongying Ni

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 16 references

UltraTwin: Towards Cardiac Anatomical Twin Generation from Multi-view 2D Ultrasound

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 UltraTwin reconstructs personalized 3D cardiac anatomical twins from sparse multi-view 2D ultrasound, reporting the highest Dice similarity (77.27%) among compared methods on a real 24-patient test set.

desk verdict Solid, well-ablated system paper for 3D cardiac reconstruction from 2D echo; the pseudo-paired pretraining is the main soft spot and needs validation before the headline numbers are taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23490 v1 pith:N26ZR2WG submitted 2025-06-30 eess.IV cs.AIcs.CV

Junxuan Yu , Yaofei Duan , Yuhao Huang , Yu Wang , Rongbo Ling , Weihao Luo , Ang Zhang , Jingxian Xu

show 17 more authors

Qiongying Ni Yongsong Zhou Binghan Li Haoran Dou Liping Liu Yanfen Chu Feng Geng Zhe Sheng Zhifeng Ding Dingxin Zhang Rui Huang Yuhang Zhang Xiaowei Xu Tao Tan Dong Ni Zhongshan Gou Xin Yang

This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.IVcs.AIcs.CV

keywords cardiacanatomicaltwinmulti-view2Dultrasound3Dreconstructiondiffusiontransformerimplicitautoencoderpseudo-paireddatacoarse-to-finetopologyconstraints

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 a per-patient 3D cardiac model — an "anatomical twin" — can be generated from just three standard 2D ultrasound views, and that the proposed pipeline, UltraTwin, does this more accurately than existing reconstruction methods. To get around the scarcity of paired ultrasound-CT data, the authors build a pseudo-paired pretraining set by matching ultrasound frames to CT-derived models on seven key parameters, then fine-tune on strictly paired data. A coarse-to-fine diffusion transformer produces the shape, and an implicit autoencoder trained on CT segmentations enforces topological plausibility. On a 24-patient real-world test set, the method reports an average Dice similarity coefficient of 77.27%, a Hausdorff distance of 5.07, and a volumetric error of 22.56 ml, with statistical significance against all competitors. If these results transfer, the work would give clinicians a low-cost route to 3D cardiac geometry from routine ultrasound.

What carries the argument

The conditional Diffusion Transformer (CDiT) with multi-view feature fusion and cross-attention condition injection, a template selector that picks a cardiac shape prior, and a coarse-to-fine refinement stage that partitions voxel patches anisotropically along each axis and fuses branch outputs using local-variance weights. The implicit autoencoder, with deformation, template, and residual decoding branches, is trained on CT segmentations and applied at inference to correct implausible topology in the denoised output.

What would settle it

Run UltraTwin on a dataset of same-day contrast CT and ultrasound pairs from multiple centers; if the average Dice advantage over the same baselines shrinks or disappears, the pseudo-paired pretraining was supplying the apparent improvement. Alternatively, train without the pseudo-paired pretraining and measure whether the component ablations still hold; the paper's own ablation shows pretraining lifts all methods, so a sensitivity analysis isolating the pretraining effect would settle the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

UltraTwin is the first multi-view 3D cardiac reconstruction framework based on a Diffusion Transformer (DiT) that operates on real-world clinical data. The central claim is that combining pseudo-paired data pretraining, a coarse-to-fine denoising scheme with cardiac template priors and anisotropic patch refinement, and a topology-constrained implicit autoencoder yields personalized, topologically plausible cardiac anatomical twins from sparse multi-view 2D ultrasound. The paper reports that this design outperforms all compared methods — E-Pix2Vox++, GARNet, UMIFormer, and LRGT — across Dice similarity coefficient, Hausdorff distance, and volumetric error, with statistically significant differences, on a 24-patient held-out test set; with pretraining the average DSC reaches 77.27%.

Load-bearing premise

The pseudo-paired ultrasound frames, matched to CT-derived models on seven parameters from a non-contrast CT taken up to ten days apart, really are the same heart phase and position; if that alignment is wrong, the pretraining teaches the network a biased mapping and the reported gains partly rest on that pretraining.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Routine 2D echocardiography could produce 3D cardiac geometry at low cost, without CT radiation or 3D ultrasound equipment.
The pseudo-paired data strategy offers a recipe for pretraining other multi-view reconstruction networks when paired data is scarce; the paper reports it improved all compared methods, not just UltraTwin.
The reported volumetric error of about 22.56 ml suggests the reconstructed twins are quantitatively close enough to support chamber volume measurements in clinical workflows.
Ablations show the implicit autoencoder and coarse-to-fine refinement each add measurable DSC/HD improvement, so the full stack is what the claim is made for.

Reading between the lines

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

The pseudo-pairing already computes cardiac motion curves and frame-level parameters, so the same alignment machinery could extend UltraTwin from ED/ES static twins to continuous 4D reconstruction across a full cardiac cycle.
Because the topology prior is learned from adult CT segmentations, applying UltraTwin to pediatric hearts or congenital malformations would likely require fine-tuning the implicit autoencoder on those populations before its constraints help rather than distort.
The dynamic fusion rule weights each anisotropic branch by local variance, which can be read as a cheap per-voxel uncertainty estimate; exposing that map to clinicians is a natural extension the paper does not develop.
The method's reliance on TotalSegmentator-derived labels means the ceiling on twin quality is set by CT segmentation accuracy; an extension would be to train the autoencoder on manually refined segmentations and measure how much DSC changes.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

Two things to know about this paper. First, it is one of the few real-world, paired 2D-ultrasound-to-3D-CT cardiac reconstruction efforts, with a prospectively collected dataset from nine hospitals and a method that appears to work. Second, the part I'd want to poke at before believing the headline numbers is the pseudo-paired pretraining: the paper says non-contrast CT scans are 'unable to establish accurate 2D-3D pairing,' then uses them to generate the pseudo-pairs that drive pretraining. That is a genuine tension.

What is new and good: they collect 891 cases, 96 of them ECG-gated and usable for strict pairing, and build a DiT-based coarse-to-fine reconstruction with anisotropic refinement and an implicit autoencoder that enforces topological plausibility. The ablation studies are real: each module adds a bit, and the gains look consistent across structures. They explicitly exclude validation and test samples from autoencoder training, so the circularity burden is low. The qualitative results look better than the metrics suggest, and they release code and claim dataset availability.

Where it is soft: the test set is 24 patients, there are no confidence intervals, and significance testing is only reported for DSC, not HD or Evol. More importantly, the pseudo-pairing alignment has no error statistics—no distribution of the seven-parameter error, no manual verification that the matched US frame and CT model correspond to the same phase and plane. If that alignment is systematically biased, the pretraining could teach a biased mapping, and about half of the improvement over the no-pretraining baseline comes from pretraining. That said, the pretraining helps all methods, including the baselines, which is reassuring. I would not call it fatal, but I would want the authors to show the alignment error distribution and ideally a small manual validation set.

Bottom line: this is a solid empirical paper, not a breakthrough. It deserves a serious referee, but with a request for more rigorous validation of the pseudo-pairing and better statistics. I would bring it to a reading group as a case study in how to use weakly supervised pairing in medical imaging—and what to check before trusting it.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents UltraTwin, a generative framework that reconstructs a 3D cardiac anatomical twin (five cardiac structures plus background) from three standard 2D ultrasound views. The method combines a conditional Diffusion Transformer with a coarse-to-fine scheme (template selection and anisotropic patch partitioning with dynamic fusion) and an implicit autoencoder that imposes topological constraints at inference. To address limited paired data, the authors construct a dataset with strictly paired ECG-gated CT/ultrasound samples and 'pseudo-paired' samples created by matching an A4C ultrasound frame to a CT-derived model via seven key parameters. On a private 24-patient test set, Table 1 reports average DSC of 77.27%, HD of 5.07, and Evol of 22.56 ml with pretraining, outperforming four competing methods; ablations show that each proposed module contributes. The authors state that code and data will be made available.

Significance. The clinical problem is relevant, and the dataset construction is a substantial effort: multicenter prospective collection, ECG-gated and non-contrast CT, patient-level splitting, and a planned code/data release. The coarse-to-fine DiT with anisotropic branches and dynamic fusion is a reasonable and well-motivated design, and the ablations support the contribution of each module. If the reported results are robust, UltraTwin would be a useful step toward personalized 3D cardiac modeling from routine 2D echocardiography. However, the central claim currently rests on a small private test set and on the unverified validity of the pseudo-paired pretraining data; the absolute metrics also inherit any bias in the CT segmentation proxy used as ground truth. These issues need to be addressed before the strong comparative claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[Section 2.1] The pseudo-paired pretraining strategy is the main differentiator in Table 1, but the paper provides no evidence that the selected A4C ultrasound frame and the CT-derived model are actually aligned in cardiac phase and spatial orientation. The seven key parameters are not enumerated, and no distribution of parameter errors, acceptance threshold, or independent verification (manual or automated) is reported. Since the CT is non-contrast and acquired up to 10 days apart, and the paper itself states that such CT is 'unable to establish accurate 2D-3D pairing', the pseudo-pairs may teach the network a biased 2D-3D mapping. Please report the achieved parameter-error distribution and an acceptance criterion, and include a sensitivity analysis that either retrains without pseudo-pairs or evaluates on the strictly paired ECG-gated subset only.
[Section 3, Table 1] The headline claim of consistent superiority rests on only 24 test patients. The table reports point estimates and Wilcoxon p-values for DSC only, with no confidence intervals or dispersion measures for HD or Evol, and no correction for multiple comparisons across the many pairwise tests. With n=24, a single outlier can change the average. Please provide bootstrap confidence intervals for all three metrics, paired effect sizes, and either corrected p-values or a clearly labeled exploratory analysis. In addition, the text states 'statistically significant improvements (p < 0.05)' while the table includes p=0.1355 for UltraTwin without pretraining; the comparison structure should be clarified.
[Section 3, Data Acquisition and Evaluation Metrics] Ground truth is derived from TotalSegmentator with manual correction, resampled to 3 mm spacing and voxelized at 64^3. The paper does not validate this proxy: there is no comparison of TotalSegmentator output to expert manual segmentation, no inter-observer variability, and no assessment of how 3 mm resampling or voxelization affects DSC, HD, and Evol. Because the same pipeline supplies both the implicit autoencoder training data and the test labels, the reported absolute metrics are contingent on segmentation quality. Please include a segmentation-quality evaluation on a labeled subset or report metrics relative to expert manual segmentations.

minor comments (5)

[Section 2.1 and Section 3] The terminology is inconsistent: the abstract and introduction say 'strictly paired multi-view 2D US and CT', while Section 3 reports '891 paired cases/patients: 96 ECG-gated and 795 non-strictly paired'. Please define 'strictly paired' and 'non-strictly paired' clearly and use the terms consistently.
[Section 2.2, Eq. (2)] The dynamic fusion mechanism mentions a 'normalized adaptive weight' but Eq. (2) defines only w_x, w_y, and w_z without the normalization step. Please write the full formula used to obtain the final fused output.
[Section 3, Implementation Details] The 'pretrained structure and keypoint detectors' used for motion-curve extraction and frame-level parameters are not specified. Please provide details or references, since the pseudo-pairing quality depends on these detectors.
[Figure 5 caption] The caption states '(a1, b1, c1) and (a2, b2, c2) represent the input US images, reconstructed cardiac digital twins, GTs, and surface distance maps' but the list appears to contain four items for three panels. Please correct the caption to match the figure content.
[Throughout] There are minor language issues, e.g., 'with manually correction' in Section 3 and 'we pioneered' in the abstract. A careful proofread would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: held-out CT ground truth and autoencoder training that excludes validation/test samples keep the evaluation self-contained.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison is against a held-out 24-patient test set with CT-derived ground truth, which is an external benchmark not used to fit the method. The implicit autoencoder used for topology-aware refinement was trained on 1,379 cardiac models with validation/test samples explicitly excluded, so its inference-time refinement is an inductive bias toward CT-like anatomy rather than a memorization or reproduction of test targets. The pseudo-paired pretraining is a data-augmentation heuristic: it selects A4C ultrasound frames by minimizing seven key parameters relative to a CT-derived model and temporally aligns other views via motion-curve position. This creates weak supervision, but the network never receives the parameters as input at inference, and the final evaluation is against CT segmentations, not against those matching parameters. No self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem is load-bearing; the cited method sources (e.g., Stojanovski et al. for A4C view computation and Yang et al. for the implicit decoder architecture) are external. The absence of reported alignment-error distributions or acceptance thresholds is a data-quality and reproducibility concern, but it does not make the derivation circular by construction.

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

The central claim rests on the validity of CT-derived segmentations, on the US-to-CT pairing strategy, and on the topology prior learned from the same kind of CT anatomy used for evaluation. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption TotalSegmentator segmentations, after manual correction, define the ground-truth cardiac anatomy used for supervision and evaluation.
All GT 3D models are CT segmentations from TotalSegmentator; any systematic segmentation error propagates into both training labels and reported DSC/HD/Evol. Invoked in Sections 2.1 and 3.
domain assumption Multi-view 2D US frames can be meaningfully paired with 3D CT models via seven key parameters and motion-curve alignment, even for non-strictly paired data.
Pseudo-paired pretraining selects the A4C US frame with minimal parameter error, assuming temporal and phase correspondence. Misalignment would corrupt the pretraining signal. Invoked in Section 2.1.
domain assumption The implicit autoencoder trained on 1,379 CT cardiac models provides a valid topology prior that improves reconstructions at inference time.
Inference-time refinement assumes the learned prior generalizes to test patients and does not distort real anatomy; the paper's own Evol results show volume error does not always improve. Invoked in Sections 2.3 and 3.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of UltraTwin: Towards Cardiac Anatomical Twin Generation from Multi-view 2D Ultrasound." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N26ZR2WG

@misc{pith2026250623490,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: UltraTwin: Towards Cardiac Anatomical Twin Generation from Multi-view 2D Ultrasound},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N26ZR2WG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23490}
}

read the original abstract

Echocardiography is routine for cardiac examination. However, 2D ultrasound (US) struggles with accurate metric calculation and direct observation of 3D cardiac structures. Moreover, 3D US is limited by low resolution, small field of view and scarce availability in practice. Constructing the cardiac anatomical twin from 2D images is promising to provide precise treatment planning and clinical quantification. However, it remains challenging due to the rare paired data, complex structures, and US noises. In this study, we introduce a novel generative framework UltraTwin, to obtain cardiac anatomical twin from sparse multi-view 2D US. Our contribution is three-fold. First, pioneered the construction of a real-world and high-quality dataset containing strictly paired multi-view 2D US and CT, and pseudo-paired data. Second, we propose a coarse-to-fine scheme to achieve hierarchical reconstruction optimization. Last, we introduce an implicit autoencoder for topology-aware constraints. Extensive experiments show that UltraTwin reconstructs high-quality anatomical twins versus strong competitors. We believe it advances anatomical twin modeling for potential applications in personalized cardiac care.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.23490 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** UltraTwin Workflow: from multi-view 2D US to 3D cardiac anatomical twin. Recently, several deep learning-based algorithms for cardiac reconstruction have been investigated. Laumer et al. [4] utilized single-view US for synthetic cardiac reconstruction. However, their approach could not differentiate between variations inherent to US imaging artifacts and actual cardiac pathologies due to the limited one-view informa… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The pipeline of our proposed UltraTwin. In the coarse stage, a template selector (TS) outputs a template to guide denoising. The coarse output is patchified and refined anisotropically, with double dynamic fusion of branch results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Topology Constrained Implicit AutoEncoder. (a) The Pipeline of Implicit AutoEncoder. (b) The details of Implicit Decoder. as the query, eT as key and value, and C as redisual, respectively, dual-condition cross-attention is applied for integration. This process repeats across multiple CDiT-Blocks, generating a coarse voxel tensor Vc ∈ R N×V ×V ×V . In the refinement stage, we propose an anisotropic patch partitioni… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Visual comparison of different methods (fine-tuned). Rows 1 and 2 represent the ED and ES phase of the same patient, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Visual comparison between UltraTwin and GT. (a1, b1, c1) and (a2, b2, c2) represent the input US images, reconstructed cardiac digital twins, GTs, and surface distance maps from different camera views for two patients, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p0…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

[1]

Bernard, O., Lalande, A., Zotti, C., Cervenansky, F., Yang, X., Heng, P.A., Cetin, I., Lekadir, K., Camara, O., Ballester, M.A.G., et al.: Deep learning techniques for automatic mri cardiac multi-structures segmentation and diagnosis: is the problem solved? IEEE transactions on medical imaging37(11), 2514–2525 (2018)

2018
[2]

He,K.,Zhang,X.,Ren,S.,Sun,J.:Deepresiduallearningforimagerecognition.In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 770–778 (2016)

2016
[3]

Advances in neural information processing systems33, 6840–6851 (2020)

Ho, J., Jain, A., Abbeel, P.: Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems33, 6840–6851 (2020)

2020
[4]

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
[5]

Medical Image Analysis101, 103434 (2025)

Laumer, F., Rubi, L., Matter, M.A., Buoso, S., Fringeli, G., Mach, F., Ruschitzka, F., Buhmann, J.M., Matter, C.M.: 2d echocardiography video to 3d heart shape reconstruction for clinical application. Medical Image Analysis101, 103434 (2025)

work page 2025
[6]

IEEE transactions on medical imaging (2024)

Li, L., Camps, J., Wang, Z., Beetz, M., Banerjee, A., Rodriguez, B., Grau, V.: Towards enabling cardiac digital twins of myocardial infarction using deep compu- tational models for inverse inference. IEEE transactions on medical imaging (2024)

work page 2024
[7]

Advances in neural information processing systems 36, 67960–67971 (2023) 10 J

Mo, S., Xie, E., Chu, R., Hong, L., Niessner, M., Li, Z.: Dit-3d: Exploring plain diffusion transformers for 3d shape generation. Advances in neural information processing systems 36, 67960–67971 (2023) 10 J. Yu et al

work page 2023
[8]

Ultra- sound in Obstetrics and Gynecology: The Official Journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology16(4), 374–383 (2000)

Nelson,T.,Pretorius,D.,Hull,A.,Riccabona,M.,Sklansky,M.,James,G.:Sources and impact of artifacts on clinical three-dimensional ultrasound imaging. Ultra- sound in Obstetrics and Gynecology: The Official Journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology16(4), 374–383 (2000)

work page 2000

Show all 16 references

[9]

Peebles,W.,Xie,S.:Scalablediffusionmodelswithtransformers.In:Proceedingsof the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 4195–4205 (2023)

2023
[10]

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
[11]

European Heart Journal45(45), 4808–4821 (2024)

Thangaraj, P.M., Benson, S.H., Oikonomou, E.K., Asselbergs, F.W., Khera, R.: Cardiovascular care with digital twin technology in the era of generative artificial intelligence. European Heart Journal45(45), 4808–4821 (2024)

2024
[12]

Radiology: Artificial Intelligence 5(5), e230024 (2023)

Wasserthal, J., Breit, H.C., Meyer, M.T., Pradella, M., Hinck, D., Sauter, A.W., Heye, T., Boll, D.T., Cyriac, J., Yang, S., et al.: Totalsegmentator: robust segmen- tation of 104 anatomic structures in ct images. Radiology: Artificial Intelligence 5(5), e230024 (2023)

2023
[13]

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

Yang, J., Sedykh, E., Adhinarta, J.K., Le, H., Fua, P.: Generating anatomically accurate heart structures via neural implicit fields. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. pp. 264–274. Springer (2024)

2024
[14]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

Yang, L., Zhu, Z., Lin, X., Nong, J., Liang, Y.: Long-range grouping transformer for multi-view 3d reconstruction. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 18257–18267 (2023)

2023
[15]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

Zhu, Z., Yang, L., Li, N., Jiang, C., Liang, Y.: Umiformer: Mining the correlations between similar tokens for multi-view 3d reconstruction. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 18226–18235 (2023)

2023
[16]

Pattern Recognition 142, 109674 (2023)

Zhu, Z., Yang, L., Lin, X., Yang, L., Liang, Y.: Garnet: Global-aware multi-view 3d reconstruction network and the cost-performance tradeoff. Pattern Recognition 142, 109674 (2023)

2023

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Bernard, O., Lalande, A., Zotti, C., Cervenansky, F., Yang, X., Heng, P.A., Cetin, I., Lekadir, K., Camara, O., Ballester, M.A.G., et al.: Deep learning techniques for automatic mri cardiac multi-structures segmentation and diagnosis: is the problem solved? IEEE transactions on medical imaging37(11), 2514–2525 (2018)

2018

[2] [2]

He,K.,Zhang,X.,Ren,S.,Sun,J.:Deepresiduallearningforimagerecognition.In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 770–778 (2016)

2016

[3] [3]

Advances in neural information processing systems33, 6840–6851 (2020)

Ho, J., Jain, A., Abbeel, P.: Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems33, 6840–6851 (2020)

2020

[4] [4]

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

[5] [5]

Medical Image Analysis101, 103434 (2025)

Laumer, F., Rubi, L., Matter, M.A., Buoso, S., Fringeli, G., Mach, F., Ruschitzka, F., Buhmann, J.M., Matter, C.M.: 2d echocardiography video to 3d heart shape reconstruction for clinical application. Medical Image Analysis101, 103434 (2025)

work page 2025

[6] [6]

IEEE transactions on medical imaging (2024)

Li, L., Camps, J., Wang, Z., Beetz, M., Banerjee, A., Rodriguez, B., Grau, V.: Towards enabling cardiac digital twins of myocardial infarction using deep compu- tational models for inverse inference. IEEE transactions on medical imaging (2024)

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Advances in neural information processing systems 36, 67960–67971 (2023) 10 J

Mo, S., Xie, E., Chu, R., Hong, L., Niessner, M., Li, Z.: Dit-3d: Exploring plain diffusion transformers for 3d shape generation. Advances in neural information processing systems 36, 67960–67971 (2023) 10 J. Yu et al

work page 2023

[8] [8]

Ultra- sound in Obstetrics and Gynecology: The Official Journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology16(4), 374–383 (2000)

Nelson,T.,Pretorius,D.,Hull,A.,Riccabona,M.,Sklansky,M.,James,G.:Sources and impact of artifacts on clinical three-dimensional ultrasound imaging. Ultra- sound in Obstetrics and Gynecology: The Official Journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology16(4), 374–383 (2000)

work page 2000