Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 37 references

Real-time volumetric free-hand ultrasound imaging for large-sized organs: A study of imaging the whole spine

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a real-time volumetric free-hand ultrasound system can image the whole spine in about two minutes and that its curve angle correlates with the X-ray Cobb angle at 0.96.

desk verdict A credible free-hand 3D ultrasound system that scans the whole spine in two minutes and reports a promising but underpowered 0.96 UCA-Cobb correlation; the engineering is useful, the clinical proof is not yet there. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00058 v1 pith:Z657OGAR submitted 2024-11-25 eess.IV cs.CV

Caozhe Li , Enxiang Shen , Haoyang Wang , Yuxin Wang , Jie Yuan , Li Gong , Di Zhao , Weijing Zhang
show 1 more author
Zhibin Jin
This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords real-timevolumetricultrasoundfree-hand3Dwhole-spineimagingscoliosisassessmentcurveangleopticalmarkertrackingincrementalreconstructiontissuesegmentation
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 aims to show that a free-hand ultrasound system, built from ordinary clinical ultrasound machines and an optical tracking camera, can produce a real-time 3D view of a large organ—the whole spine from the seventh cervical vertebra to the fifth lumbar vertebra—in about two minutes. If the claim holds, scoliosis monitoring could become a radiation-free procedure, since the ultrasound curve angle read from the reconstructed volume tracks the X-ray Cobb angle, the standard measure of spinal curve severity, with a correlation coefficient of 0.96. The paper also reports that measurements are repeatable for the same observer (ICC=0.94) and between observers (ICC=0.92), and that the same imaging pipeline works across several ultrasound devices and probe types.

What carries the argument

The argument runs through four coupled mechanisms. Reconstruction uses the pixel-nearest neighbor (PNN) algorithm, chosen for speed and geometric fidelity after comparison with alternatives. An incremental imaging pipeline reconstructs only newly acquired B-mode slices and re-renders only regions that changed, with CUDA and multithreading carrying acquisition, reconstruction, and rendering concurrently. Fast optical localization crops the camera image to the rough area of the marker from the previous frame, cutting recognition time to 30 ms. The final mechanism is depth-adaptive tissue segmentation: Algorithm 1 computes the cut depth as $Cut_n = K|P_{c1}.x - P_{cn}.x - L/2| + D$, with $P$ positions in camera coordinates, $L$ the back length, and $K, D$ constants, while Algorithm 2 infers the cut depth from high-brightness, high-gradient contours that mark bone cortex and applies median filtering to stabilize it. Together these mechanisms replace the fixed-depth volume projection used by earlier real-time methods, letting the operator move and tilt a standard probe freely.

What would settle it

Take a rigid spine phantom with a known curvature, scan it with the same two-minute protocol, and compare the reconstructed ultrasound curve angle with the phantom's ground-truth angle; a deviation much larger than the reported X-ray agreement, or a failure of the 0.96 correlation to hold in a prospective patient cohort, would refute the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that volumetric free-hand ultrasound imaging is feasible in real time for large organs, demonstrated on the whole spine. With an optical marker and camera providing about 1 mm spatial localization, temporal calibration to align each ultrasound frame with its tracked position, and an incremental reconstruction pipeline that only rebuilds and re-renders new data, the system acquires a spine volume from C7 to L5, over 500 mm, in about two minutes at 30 frames per second and displays it during scanning. The diagnostic claim is that the ultrasound curve angle (UCA), the ultrasound analogue of the radiographic curve measurement, correlates with the X-ray Cobb angle at $r = 0.96$ in six scoliosis patients, with intra-observer ICC = 0.94 and inter-observer ICC = 0.92. The paper further claims the same system transfers across several ultrasound machines and probe types.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on a chain of linked assumptions: the optical tracker and temporal calibration place every ultrasound frame in 3D space within about a millimetre, the bright contours the segmentation picks out are true bone surface rather than soft-tissue echoes, and the hand-set parameters of the real-time cutting method happen to fit the body being scanned; a systematic miss in any link would bias the reconstructed curve angle.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A full spine volume can be captured and displayed in about two minutes at 30 frames per second during the scan itself.
  • Repeated scoliosis follow-up could be done without ionizing radiation, using the ultrasound curve angle as a surrogate for the X-ray Cobb angle.
  • Because the system uses optical localization rather than a fixed robot path, it works with standard hand-held probes and can be moved between ultrasound machines.
  • The depth-adaptive cut means the operator may tilt the probe instead of keeping a fixed orientation, which is closer to normal ultrasound practice.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors' brief calf-muscle demonstration points toward muscle-volume measurement in conditions such as muscular dystrophy, but that application would need its own validation against MRI; the paper does not claim quantitative accuracy for muscle.
  • A 0.96 correlation based on six patients leaves room for small systematic biases, so a larger prospective comparison with X-ray is the natural next step before clinical adoption.
  • If the reconstructed spine volume can be segmented reliably, the same data could support automatic Cobb-angle-style measurement, removing the manual UCA step and further reducing observer variability.
  • The authors acknowledge that the real-time cutting method needs parameter adjustment for different body types and BMIs; an unstated consequence is that clinical deployment would need either a calibration step or automatic parameter estimation.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper describes a free-hand volumetric ultrasound system that optically tracks a conventional ultrasound probe, reconstructs a 3D volume incrementally in real time, and visualizes spinal anatomy using two heuristic tissue-segmentation algorithms. The system is applied to whole-spine imaging from C7 to L5, with a claimed scan time of about 2 minutes. In a clinical feasibility study with 6 scoliosis patients, the ultrasound curve angle (UCA) measured from the reconstructed volume is reported to correlate with the X-ray Cobb angle at r=0.96, with intra-/inter-observer ICCs of 0.94/0.92.

Significance. If the reported accuracy and speed can be reproduced, the system would be a valuable radiation-free monitoring tool for scoliosis, built from commodity ultrasound hardware rather than a custom probe. Strengths of the manuscript include the use of an external X-ray benchmark (so the main correlation is not circular), deployment across multiple ultrasound platforms and probe types, the real-time incremental reconstruction architecture, and the clearly described clinical workflow. The main limitations are the very small validation cohort and the unquantified heuristic bone-surface segmentation, both of which directly affect the strength of the central claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-B] The central claim of clinical validity rests on a correlation of r=0.96 between UCA and Cobb angle computed from only 6 scoliosis patients. No confidence interval, per-patient scatter, Bland-Altman analysis, or statistical test is reported; with n=6, the 95% CI for r=0.96 is approximately 0.67–0.996, so the data are consistent with a much weaker relationship. Please provide the individual-patient data, a scatter plot, and a Bland-Altman plot with limits of agreement; without these, the correlation cannot be assessed as evidence for the system's accuracy.
  2. [Section II-D, Table II] Algorithm 2 determines the bone-surface cut depth by extracting 'contours at the bottom of the image ... with large gradient variations and high pixel values' (Step 2). This heuristic is not quantitatively validated: there is no comparison with manually annotated bone surfaces, no phantom study with known geometry, and no error metric for the estimated cut depth. Because the UCA is measured from the volume produced by this algorithm, an erroneous contour (e.g., an acoustic shadow boundary or a bright soft-tissue interface) would directly bias the UCA and could produce a spuriously high correlation if the bias tracks the true curvature. Please validate Algorithm 2 on a phantom or against manual bone annotations and report the depth-estimation error.
  3. [Section II-B] The system's spatial accuracy is stated as 1 mm, based on the authors' prior optical localization work [34]. The current study uses a different probe-mount mold, a different camera, and a different frame grabber, and no re-calibration or accuracy measurement is reported for this combination. Reconstruction error from tracking jitter or temporal misalignment would propagate into the extracted spinal curve and the UCA; please report the localization accuracy for the current setup and, ideally, a sensitivity analysis of the UCA to translation/rotation perturbations.
  4. [Section II-D, Table I] Algorithm 1, used for the real-time imaging component, depends on two constants, K and D, and the Discussion explicitly notes that parameter adjustment is needed for different body types and BMIs. No sensitivity analysis is provided, and the values of K and D used in the reported scans are not stated. Since the real-time display is a central part of the system's claimed advantage, the paper should quantify how the output changes with these parameters and state the chosen values.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II-D] The notation in Table I (e.g., the transformation matrices and the coordinate frames) is introduced only in prose after the table; consider defining all symbols before the table or in a nomenclature list.
  2. [Abstract and Section III-B] The 2-minute scan time is reported for a volunteer; specify whether the 6 patients also required approximately 2 minutes and how scan time varies with body size.
  3. [Section III-B] The intra-/inter-observer ICCs are reported without confidence intervals or details on whether the three surgeons measured both Cobb and UCA while blinded to the other modality; please clarify the measurement protocol.
  4. [All figures] Figs. 2, 4, 7, and 8 are mentioned in the text but their visual content is not fully described in the surrounding text; ensure all figures are self-explanatory and referenced in order.
  5. [Throughout] There are minor typographical issues, e.g., 'conduct ing', 'ultras ound', and the repeated running header 'C. Li et al.'; these should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity is found: the UCA-Cobb comparison is validated against external X-ray data, and the sole self-citation ([34], optical tracking) is a component rather than a reduction of the central claim.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim is that the ultrasound curve angle (UCA) measured from its own reconstructed 3D volume correlates at r=0.96 with the X-ray Cobb angle, with intra-/inter-observer ICCs of 0.94/0.92 (Section III-B). This is validated against an independent external measurement: the Cobb angle is read from radiographs, while UCA is read from the ultrasound volume produced by the system. No regression parameter is fitted to the Cobb data and then renamed a prediction; the reported correlation is a descriptive statistic relating two independently measured quantities. The UCA metric is not introduced by this paper; the authors cite Zheng et al. [21] for its feasibility. That citation is to external prior work and does not make the present UCA-versus-Cobb comparison circular, because the present study still computes the association on its own six patients and its own reconstructed volumes. The only self-citation is the optical calibration and tracking method from the authors' prior work [34], used to spatially localize B-mode images. This is a component of the engineering pipeline; while the system's 1 mm spatial accuracy claim is inherited from [34], the clinical validation of the end-to-end system against X-ray is not derived from [34], and the tracking method does not define either the UCA or the Cobb angle. Thus the central derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs. The paper leaves Algorithm 2's bone-surface contour heuristic quantitatively unvalidated against manual annotations or phantoms, as a skeptical reviewer might note; that is a correctness and robustness gap, not a circularity. No equation or procedural step equates the output to the input by construction, and no fitted parameter is presented as a prediction. Score 2 reflects only the presence of a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation; there is no significant circularity in the paper's central claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The system introduces no new physical entities, but it depends on several inherited assumptions and hand-set parameters. The most load-bearing are the UCA/Cobb-angle proxy and the spatial accuracy of the optical tracking, both cited from prior work rather than re-established here.

free parameters (3)
  • K = not specified
    In Algorithm 1, K translates spatial distance along the spine to image cut depth; the paper states it requires parameter adjustments for different body types.
  • D = not specified
    Initial value of the image cut depth in Algorithm 1; also requires adjustment per patient.
  • Algorithm 2 segmentation parameters = not specified
    The median filtering window size and gradient/brightness thresholds for contour extraction in Table II are not given numerical values.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption UCA is a valid proxy for Cobb angle for scoliosis severity.
    Relies on prior work [21]; the study does not independently validate the correspondence across a wide range of curvatures.
  • domain assumption Optical marker localization and temporal calibration achieve sufficient accuracy (spatial ~1 mm) for volume geometry.
    Adopted from authors' prior work [34] and Treece et al. [33]; no per-session error validation is reported.
  • domain assumption Bone cortex appears as a bright, high-gradient contour at the bottom of the B-mode image.
    Standard ultrasound physics, cited with [14]; underpins Algorithm 2's feature extraction.
  • domain assumption Pixel-nearest-neighbor (PNN) reconstruction is adequate for large-target geometry.
    Based on Solberg et al. [35]; the choice is justified by speed, not by a geometry-error analysis.
  • ad hoc to paper The scanning procedure (three side-by-side columns, C7 to L5) covers the spine without gaps.
    The study does not quantify coverage completeness or stitching errors between columns.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Real-time volumetric free-hand ultrasound imaging for large-sized organs: A study of imaging the whole spine." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z657OGAR

@misc{pith2026241200058,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Real-time volumetric free-hand ultrasound imaging for large-sized organs: A study of imaging the whole spine},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z657OGAR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00058}
}
read the original abstract

Three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound imaging can overcome the limitations of conventional two dimensional (2D) ultrasound imaging in structural observation and measurement. However, conducting volumetric ultrasound imaging for large-sized organs still faces difficulties including long acquisition time, inevitable patient movement, and 3D feature recognition. In this study, we proposed a real-time volumetric free-hand ultrasound imaging system optimized for the above issues and applied it to the clinical diagnosis of scoliosis. This study employed an incremental imaging method coupled with algorithmic acceleration to enable real-time processing and visualization of the large amounts of data generated when scanning large-sized organs. Furthermore, to deal with the difficulty of image feature recognition, we proposed two tissue segmentation algorithms to reconstruct and visualize the spinal anatomy in 3D space by approximating the depth at which the bone structures are located and segmenting the ultrasound images at different depths. We validated the adaptability of our system by deploying it to multiple models of ultra-sound equipment and conducting experiments using different types of ultrasound probes. We also conducted experiments on 6 scoliosis patients and 10 normal volunteers to evaluate the performance of our proposed method. Ultrasound imaging of a volunteer spine from shoulder to crotch (more than 500 mm) was performed in 2 minutes, and the 3D imaging results displayed in real-time were compared with the corresponding X-ray images with a correlation coefficient of 0.96 in spinal curvature. Our proposed volumetric ultrasound imaging system might hold the potential to be clinically applied to other large-sized organs.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    Free scan real time 3D ultrasound imaging with shading artefacts removal ,

    Y. Lu et al., “Free scan real time 3D ultrasound imaging with shading artefacts removal ,” Ultrasonics., vol. 135, 107091, Dec. 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Three-dimensional ultrasound imaging,

    A. Fenster et al., “Three-dimensional ultrasound imaging,” Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 67-99, May. 2001

    work page 2001

  3. [2]

    3D reconstruction of a carotid bifurcation from 2D transversal ultrasound images,

    E. Yeom et al., “3D reconstruction of a carotid bifurcation from 2D transversal ultrasound images,” Ultrasonics., vol. 54, no. 8, pp. 2184-2192, 2014

    work page 2014

  4. [3]

    Evaluation of Freehand B -Mode and Power-Mode 3D Ultrasound for Visualisation and Grading of Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis,

    JO. Pelz et al ., “Evaluation of Freehand B -Mode and Power-Mode 3D Ultrasound for Visualisation and Grading of Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis,” PLoS. One., vol. 12, no. 1, e0167500, Jan. 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [4]

    Freehand three-dimensional ultrasound imaging of carotid artery using motion tracking technology,

    SW. Chung et al., “Freehand three-dimensional ultrasound imaging of carotid artery using motion tracking technology,” Ultrasonics., vol. 74, pp.11-20, Feb. 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [5]

    Stradx: real -time acquisition and visualization of freehand three -dimensional ultrasound ,

    RW. Prager et al . “Stradx: real -time acquisition and visualization of freehand three -dimensional ultrasound ,” Med. Image. Anal., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 129-140, Jun. 1999

    work page 1999

  7. [6]

    The use of three-dimensional ultrasound for thyroid volumetry ,

    S. Schlö gl et al., “The use of three-dimensional ultrasound for thyroid volumetry ,” Thyroid. vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 569 - C. Li et al.: Real-time volumetric free-hand ultrasound imaging for large-sized organs: A study of imaging the whole spine 574, Jun. 2001

    work page 2001

  8. [7]

    Three-dimensional ultrasound reconstruction of the pelvicaliceal system: an in -vitro study,

    KR. Ghani et al ., “Three-dimensional ultrasound reconstruction of the pelvicaliceal system: an in -vitro study,” World. J. Urol., vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 493 -498, Oct. 2008

    work page 2008

Show all 37 references
  1. [8]

    Volume estimation of small phantoms and rat kidneys using three-dimensional ultrasonography and a position sensor,

    K. Strø mmen et al ., “Volume estimation of small phantoms and rat kidneys using three-dimensional ultrasonography and a position sensor,” Ultrasound. Med. Biol., vol. 30, no. 9, pp. 1109-1117, Sep. 2004

    2004

  2. [9]

    3D and 4D ultrasound in fetal cardiac scanning: a new look at the fetal heart ,

    S. Yagel et al ., “3D and 4D ultrasound in fetal cardiac scanning: a new look at the fetal heart ,” Ultrasound. Obstet. Gynecol., vol.29, no. 1, pp. 81-95, Jan. 2007

    2007

  3. [10]

    A fast convolution -based methodology to simulate 2 -Dd/3-D cardiac ultrasound images,

    H. Gao et al., “A fast convolution -based methodology to simulate 2 -Dd/3-D cardiac ultrasound images,” IEEE. Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 404-409, Feb. 2009

    2009

  4. [11]

    A fast slam approach to freehand 3 - d ultrasound reconstruction for catheter ablation guidance in the left atrium,

    AB. Koolwal et al., “A fast slam approach to freehand 3 - d ultrasound reconstruction for catheter ablation guidance in the left atrium,” Ultrasound. Med. Biol., vol. 37, no. 12, pp. 2037-2054, Dec. 2011

    2011

  5. [12]

    3D spatial compounding of ultrasound images us ing image -based nonrigid registration ,

    JF. Krü cker et al., “3D spatial compounding of ultrasound images us ing image -based nonrigid registration ,” Ultrasound. Med. Biol., vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 1475-1488, Nov. 2000

    2000

  6. [13]

    A Review on Real -Time 3D Ultrasound Imaging Technology ,

    Q. Huang and Z. Zeng, “A Review on Real -Time 3D Ultrasound Imaging Technology ,” Biomed. Res. Int., vol. 2017, 6027029, 2017

    2017

  7. [14]

    Ultrasound imaging and segmentation of bone surfaces: A review ,

    I. Hacihaliloglu, “Ultrasound imaging and segmentation of bone surfaces: A review ,” Technology (Singap World Sci)., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 74-80, Jun. 2017

    2017

  8. [15]

    Three-dimensional spinal curvature in idiopathic scoliosis ,

    IA. Stokes et al., “Three-dimensional spinal curvature in idiopathic scoliosis ,” J. Orthop. Res., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 102-113, 1987

    1987

  9. [16]

    Prevalence of Idiopathic Scoliosis in Chinese Schoolchildren: A Large, Population -Based Study,

    F. Hengwei et al. , “Prevalence of Idiopathic Scoliosis in Chinese Schoolchildren: A Large, Population -Based Study,” Spine., vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 259-264, Feb. 2016

    2016

  10. [17]

    X-ray computed tomography ,

    WA. Kalender, “X-ray computed tomography ,” Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 51, no. 13, pp. 29-43, Jul. 2006

    2006

  11. [18]

    SOSORT 2012 consensus paper: reducing x-ray exposure in pediatric patients with scoliosis ,

    P. Knott et al., “SOSORT 2012 consensus paper: reducing x-ray exposure in pediatric patients with scoliosis ,” Scoliosis., vol. 9, pp. 4, Apr. 2014

    2012

  12. [19]

    Incidence of cancer in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients treated 25 years previously ,

    A. Simony et al ., “Incidence of cancer in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients treated 25 years previously ,” Eur. Spine. J., vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 3366-3370, Oct. 2016

    2016

  13. [20]

    3D ultrasound imaging provides reliable angle measurement with validity comparable to X -ray in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis,

    TT. Lee et al., “3D ultrasound imaging provides reliable angle measurement with validity comparable to X -ray in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis,” J. Orthop. Translat., vol. 29, pp. 51-59, May. 2021

    2021

  14. [21]

    A reliability and validity study for Scolioscan: a radiation -free scoliosis assessment system using 3D ultrasound imaging,

    YP. Zheng et al. , “A reliability and validity study for Scolioscan: a radiation -free scoliosis assessment system using 3D ultrasound imaging,” Scoliosis. Spinal. Disord., vol. 11, pp. 13, May. 2016

    2016

  15. [22]

    A framework for human spine imaging using a freehand 3D ultrasound system,

    KE. Purnama et al. , “A framework for human spine imaging using a freehand 3D ultrasound system,” Technol. Health. Care. vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1-17, 2010

    2010

  16. [23]

    A real -time freehand 3D ultrasound imaging method for scol iosis assessment,

    W. Jiang et al ., “A real -time freehand 3D ultrasound imaging method for scol iosis assessment,” J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys., vol. 23, no. 8, e13709, Aug. 2022

    2022

  17. [24]

    3D ultrasound imaging of scoliosis with force -sensitive robotic scanning ,

    M. Victorova et al., “3D ultrasound imaging of scoliosis with force -sensitive robotic scanning ,” In: 2019 third IEEE international conference on robotic computing. , 2019, pp. 262-265

    2019

  18. [25]

    Follow the Curve: Robotic Ultrasound Navigation With Learning-Based Localization of Spinous Processes for Scoliosis Assessment ,

    M. Victorova et al ., “Follow the Curve: Robotic Ultrasound Navigation With Learning-Based Localization of Spinous Processes for Scoliosis Assessment ,” IEEE Access., vol. 10, pp. 40216-40229, 2022

    2022

  19. [26]

    A Novel Method to Measure the Sagittal Curvature in Spinal Deformities: The Reliability and Feasibility of 3-D Ultrasound Imaging,

    TT. Lee et al., “A Novel Method to Measure the Sagittal Curvature in Spinal Deformities: The Reliability and Feasibility of 3-D Ultrasound Imaging,” Ultrasound. Med. Biol., vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 2725-2735, Oct. 2019

    2019

  20. [27]

    Is Radiation-Free Ultrasound Accurate for Quantitative Assessment of Spinal Deformity in Idiopathic Scoliosis (IS): A Detailed Analysis With EOS Radiography on 952 Patients ,

    YS. Wong et al., “Is Radiation-Free Ultrasound Accurate for Quantitative Assessment of Spinal Deformity in Idiopathic Scoliosis (IS): A Detailed Analysis With EOS Radiography on 952 Patients ,” Ultrasound. Med. Biol., vol. 45, no. 11, pp. 2866-2877, Nov. 2019

    2019

  21. [28]

    Anatomical prior based vertebra modelling for reappearance of hum an spines ,

    Q. Huang et al. , “Anatomical prior based vertebra modelling for reappearance of hum an spines ,” Neurocomputing., vol. 500, pp. 750-760, 2022

    2022

  22. [29]

    Automatic Spinal Ultrasound Image Segmentation and Deployment for Real -time Spine Volumetric Reconstruction,

    Y Cao et al. , “Automatic Spinal Ultrasound Image Segmentation and Deployment for Real -time Spine Volumetric Reconstruction,” In: 2022 IEEE International Conference on Unmanned Systems, 2022, pp. 922-927

    2022

  23. [30]

    Automatic Spine Ultrasound Segmentation for Scoliosis Visualization and Measurement ,

    T. Ungi et al., “Automatic Spine Ultrasound Segmentation for Scoliosis Visualization and Measurement ,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 67, no. 11, pp. 3234-3241, Nov. 2020

    2020

  24. [31]

    Reliability and accuracy of ultrasound measurements with and without the aid of previous radiographs in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS),

    M. Young et al., “Reliability and accuracy of ultrasound measurements with and without the aid of previous radiographs in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS),” Eur. Spine. J., vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 1427-1433, Jul. 2015

    2015

  25. [32]

    Ultrasound Volume Projection Imaging for Assessment of Scoliosis ,

    CW. Cheung et al ., “Ultrasound Volume Projection Imaging for Assessment of Scoliosis ,” IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging., vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 1760-1768, Aug. 2015

    2015

  26. [33]

    High-definition freehand 3 -D ultrasound,

    GM. Treece et al ., “High-definition freehand 3 -D ultrasound,” Ultrasound. Med. Biol., vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 529-546, Apr. 2003

    2003

  27. [35]

    3D ultrasound reconstruction algorithms from analog and digital data,

    OV. Solberg et al ., “3D ultrasound reconstruction algorithms from analog and digital data,” Ultrasonics., vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 405-419, May 2011

    2011

  28. [36]

    Outlines for the study of scoliosis,

    JR. Cobb, “Outlines for the study of scoliosis,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery., vol. 5, pp. 261-275, 1947

    1947

  29. [37]

    Joint Spine Segmentation and Noise Removal From Ultrasound Volume Projection Images With Selective Feature Sharing ,

    Z. Huang et al. , “Joint Spine Segmentation and Noise Removal From Ultrasound Volume Projection Images With Selective Feature Sharing ,” IEEE Trans . Med. Imaging., vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 1610-1624, Jul. 2022

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.