Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 38 references

From Low Field to High Value: Robust Cortical Mapping from Low-Field MRI

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 A 3D U-Net trained on synthetic low-field images reconstructs cortical surfaces from portable low-field MRI with high-field-level surface area and gray-matter volume correlations.

desk verdict Solid, honest engineering paper that gives low-field MRI a cortical surface pipeline with real paired validation, but the 'out of the box' claim is only demonstrated on one scanner and would benefit from a baseline comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12228 v1 pith:LAIUOBWZ submitted 2025-05-18 cs.CV cs.LG

Karthik Gopinath , Annabel Sorby-Adams , Jonathan W. Ramirez , Dina Zemlyanker , Jennifer Guo , David Hunt , Christine L. Mac Donald , C. Dirk Keene
show 7 more authors
Timothy Coalson Matthew F. Glasser David Van Essen Matthew S. Rosen Oula Puonti W. Taylor Kimberly Juan Eugenio Iglesias
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.LG
keywords low-fieldMRIportablecorticalsurfacereconstructionsigneddistancefunctionsdomainrandomizationsynthetictrainingdatamorphometrypostmortembrainimaging
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 tries to establish that cortical surface reconstruction and morphometry—normally reserved for high-field 1 mm T1 MRI—can be done reliably from portable low-field MRI. The proposed pipeline, recon-any, is a 3D U-Net that predicts signed distance functions to the white-matter and pial surfaces from scans of arbitrary contrast and resolution, trained only on synthetic low-field-like images produced by domain randomization. On paired 64 mT low-field and 3 T high-field scans of the same subjects, a 3 mm isotropic T2 scan acquired in under four minutes yields surface area correlation $r=0.96$, gray-matter volume $r=0.93$, and parcellation Dice of 0.98; cortical thickness is the weak point, with best correlation $r=0.70$. If the claim holds, cheap bedside scanners could support quantitative cortical analysis in clinics, field settings, and postmortem neuropathology rather than just emergency screening.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the signed distance function (SDF): a volumetric field that records, at every voxel, the signed distance to the white-matter or pial surface. A 3D U-Net with four encoder and four decoder levels is trained with an L2 loss on SDFs clipped to $\pm 5$ mm, using synthetic low-field images generated by a Bayesian-style generative model under domain randomization—voxel intensities sampled from tissue-class Gaussian mixtures, with added noise, bias fields, and nonlinear deformations, resolutions up to 4 mm, doubled bias-field and deformation strength, and simulations of ex vivo brains. At test time, marching cubes extracts an initial surface from the predicted SDF, and a geometric optimization step enforces smoothness, correct topology, and freedom from self-intersections. This SDF representation is what lets the method bypass contrast-specific segmentation and voxel-resolution limits.

What would settle it

Run recon-any without retraining on paired high-field and low-field scans from a second portable low-field system with different coil geometry, and compare isotropic T2 reconstructions to high-field surfaces; if mean surface error exceeds about 2 mm or surface-area correlation drops below about 0.9, the synthetic generator has not captured the new hardware. A cheaper probe is to measure the actual noise and bias-field statistics of real low-field scans and check whether they fall outside the simulated ranges, namely resolutions above 4 mm, bias fields stronger than twice the base model, or deformations stronger than twice the base model; the out-of-box claim should fail exactly where the simulator stops.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that direct regression of cortical signed distance functions from synthetic low-field MRI transfers to real portable scans without retraining, provided the synthetic generator spans the relevant resolution, contrast, noise, bias-field, and deformation ranges. The paper shows that reconstruction accuracy is acquisition-dependent: isotropic T2 contrast outperforms T1 at low field, and 3 mm isotropic is a practical sweet spot, since 2 mm buys little accuracy at about three times the acquisition time while the default axial $1.6\times1.6\times5$ mm sequences are clearly suboptimal. Against high-field reference surfaces, mean surface placement errors stay around 1–2 mm, below the voxel size, and lobe-level gray-matter volume errors are typically 3–6%. Cortical thickness is the exception: with 3 mm voxels and low contrast, sub-millimeter thickness estimates reach only $r\approx0.70$ on T2 and $r\approx0.30$ on T1, so thickness is reported as feasible but not high-field-equivalent. The same pipeline also reconstructs postmortem brains, including fresh, deformed tissue, with all 31 cases passing expert quality control.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the synthetic low-field images produced by the domain-randomized generator faithfully reproduce the contrast, resolution, noise, bias-field, and deformation properties of real portable low-field scanners, so that a network trained only on synthetic data transfers to real scans; the evaluation tests this on a single 64 mT scanner model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 3 mm isotropic T2 low-field protocol of under four minutes becomes a practical acquisition target for cortical morphometry, while the default axial $1.6\times1.6\times5$ mm sequences should be avoided for surface analysis.
  • Surface area and gray-matter volume from low-field scans can support group-level and longitudinal studies, with correlations above 0.9 at every tested resolution from axial to 4 mm and across both T1 and T2 contrasts.
  • Cortical thickness from low-field scans should be interpreted cautiously; even the best T2 protocol leaves $r=0.70$, and anisotropic T1 drops to $r\approx0.30$.
  • Lobe-level parcellation is reliable, with Dice above 0.85 everywhere and above 0.90 for most regions, enabling region-based analyses without high-field access.
  • Because the model works out of the box, a new low-field site needs only a scan inside the simulated augmentation ranges—no retraining or local training data are required.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the domain-randomization recipe is testable on other low-field hardware; if a second scanner's noise, bias-field, or deformation statistics fall inside the simulated ranges, the same out-of-box model should transfer, but the paper does not demonstrate this.
  • Beyond the paper: because the evaluation uses one scanner model, the reported correlations are best read as an upper bound for portable low-field systems generally; a scanner with different coil geometry or stronger field inhomogeneity could exceed the simulated artifact envelope.
  • Beyond the paper: the observation that T2 outperforms T1 at low field reverses the high-field convention and suggests that portable scanner vendors should prioritize isotropic T2 sequences for cortical morphometry, a design implication the authors raise but do not pursue quantitatively.
  • Beyond the paper: error maps concentrate in deep sulci and small parcels, so an uncertainty map per surface vertex—flagging low-confidence regions—would be a natural clinical extension; the paper does not provide one.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents recon-any, a deep-learning pipeline for cortical surface reconstruction, parcellation, and morphometry from portable low-field MRI (LF-MRI). The method is a 3D U-Net trained on domain-randomized synthetic LF-MRI-like images to predict signed distance functions for the white and pial surfaces, followed by geometric post-processing. The authors validate on paired 3T and 64 mT Hyperfine scans from 15 healthy adults across multiple resolutions (1.6x1.6x5 mm axial, 2, 3, 4 mm isotropic) and contrasts (T1, T2), reporting surface error metrics, Dice parcellation overlap, and Pearson correlations for gray matter volume, surface area, and cortical thickness. They additionally report qualitative postmortem validation on fresh and cadaveric brains. The headline results are that 3 mm isotropic T2 LF-MRI yields surface area correlation r=0.96, gray matter volume r=0.93, and cortical parcellation Dice=0.98 relative to FreeSurfer on high-field MRI.

Significance. If the reported results hold, the method would substantially lower the barrier to cortical morphometry by enabling surface-based analysis on portable, inexpensive LF-MRI systems, with potential applications in acute care, resource-limited settings, and postmortem neuropathology. The paper's strengths include paired high-field/low-field data from the same subjects, evaluation across multiple resolutions and contrasts, surface-based error metrics, confidence intervals on correlations, and public release of the tool within FreeSurfer. The domain-randomized synthetic training approach is a sensible strategy for a modality with scarce annotated data. However, the central 'robust across LF-MRI' claim is currently supported by data from a single scanner model (Hyperfine 64 mT), and the synthetic augmentation ranges are not calibrated to measured scanner physics, so the cross-scanner generality remains unproven.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Section 4.3] The manuscript's headline robustness claim is underdetermined by the evidence: Section 3 explicitly states that all evaluations used Hyperfine scanners and that generalization to other LF systems is future work, while Section 4.3 describes the four hand-set augmentation ranges (in-plane resolution to 2 mm, isotropic to 4 mm, 2x bias field, 2x deformation and rotation) as multipliers relative to the original SynthSeg model rather than values derived from measured 64 mT scanner physics. Because the 'out of the box' generalization claim rests on this uncalibrated synthetic distribution, the paper should either provide a quantitative synthetic-to-real domain-shift analysis (e.g., noise statistics, intensity distributions, or artifact profiles) or evaluate on at least one additional low-field scanner; otherwise the claims should be narrowed to Hyperfine-specific performance.
  2. [Section 2, Section 3] No baseline comparison against existing LF-capable analysis pipelines is provided. The Introduction and Discussion assert that tools such as FreeSurfer 'struggle' with LF-MRI and that recon-any is 'the only viable method currently available,' but the manuscript only compares recon-any to FreeSurfer on high-field reference surfaces. Adding a comparison against LF-SynthSR followed by recon-all, or recon-all-clinical applied directly to the same LF scans, would quantify the claimed advantage; if such a comparison is not feasible, the 'only viable method' claim should be tempered.
  3. [Section 2.3, Table 1] There is a direct contradiction between the text and Table 1 regarding cortical thickness correlations. The text states that T1 LF-MRI thickness correlations (r~0.3) 'remain statistically significant,' but Table 1 marks every T1 thickness entry with a dagger, indicating 95% confidence intervals that include zero (e.g., 0.30 [-0.25, 0.70] for 3 mm T1). This is load-bearing for the claim that thickness estimation is feasible across contrasts; the text should be corrected and the interpretation revised to reflect that T1 thickness correlations are not statistically distinguishable from zero in this sample.
  4. [Section 2.1, Section 2.4, Section 4.2] The reported scan counts are internally inconsistent. Section 2.1 describes 15 subjects each having 1.6x1.6x5 mm axial, 2 mm, 3 mm, and 4 mm scans for both T1 and T2, which implies 120 LF-MRI scans, yet the text states '60 scans total.' Similarly, Section 2.4 reports 31 postmortem LF-MRI scans that passed QC, while Section 4.2 reports 32 postmortem brains (21 fresh + 11 cadaveric). These counts should be reconciled, and the number of subjects contributing to each condition should be stated explicitly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, Table 1] The abstract states gray matter volume correlates at r=0.93 for 3 mm isotropic T2, but Table 1 reports 0.95 for that condition and 0.92 for 4 mm T2; please clarify which acquisition or pooling the abstract value refers to.
  2. [Section 2.2] The text says the parcellation results 'are based on 3 mm isotropic T1 and T2 LF-MRI scans' but also that 'the mean Dice coefficient was computed for each parcel across all resolutions'; Figure 4 caption does not state the resolution. Please disambiguate which resolutions are shown in the main figure.
  3. [Section 4.3] The L2 loss equation contains a typographical error: the notation [$SDF_i$ and $SDF_i$ is unclear, and the predicted SDF should be denoted with a hat or similar. Please correct the formula.
  4. [Section 4.2] The demographic description states 10 females and 5 males who were 'either White (n=12) or Asian (n=2)' and 'non-Hispanic (n=11) or unknown (n=3)'; these numbers sum to 14, not 15. Please reconcile the missing participant or clarify that one participant's demographics were unreported.
  5. [Figure 3 caption, Section 2.1] The caption says the 1 mm HF-MRI reference values come from scans 'used during training,' but Section 2.1 describes these as 15 held-out high-resolution test scans. Please reword to avoid implying the reference surfaces came from the training set.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the LF-to-HF agreement is an empirical transfer result, not an identity, fitted prediction, or self-citation-forced conclusion.

full rationale

The central claim is that a U-Net trained on domain-randomized synthetic LF-MRI-like images reconstructs cortical surfaces from real 64 mT Hyperfine scans that agree with FreeSurfer surfaces derived from paired 3 T HF-MRI. This is a genuine out-of-distribution transfer test: the 15 in vivo evaluation subjects are not used in training, and the real LF inputs are not generated from the test subjects' HF surfaces or from the fitted augmentation ranges. The training targets are FreeSurfer-derived SDFs and the evaluation reference is FreeSurfer on HF-MRI, so the reported agreement is with the FreeSurfer surface convention rather than direct anatomical ground truth; however, the paper explicitly frames the comparison as agreement with HF-derived surfaces, and this shared-convention limitation is not a derivation that reduces to its own inputs. The four hand-set domain-randomization modifications in Methods 4.3 are stated as design choices relative to prior work, not as parameters fitted to the test outcomes, so the reported r and Dice values are not statistically forced. Self-citations to recon-all-clinical and SynthSeg provide implementation details of the generative model, U-Net, and surface post-processing, but the load-bearing evidence is the new paired HF/LF evaluation; no uniqueness theorem or circular self-citation chain is invoked. The acknowledged single-scanner limitation in Section 3 (all evaluations on Hyperfine) is an external-validity caveat rather than a circularity, and postmortem results are presented as qualitative expert QC rather than as a quantitative confirmation. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and empirically grounded.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities or constants. Its load-bearing elements are hand-set simulation ranges and the assumption that synthetic LF-MRI training transfers to real low-field scans. No parameters are fitted to the evaluation data.

free parameters (4)
  • SDF truncation distance = 5 mm
    SDF values are clipped to ±5 mm from the surface during training (Section 4.3); hand-chosen to balance boundary focus vs loss range.
  • Isotropic voxel size range in synthetic training = Up to 4.0 mm isotropic; in-plane resolution up to 2.0 mm
    Domain randomization resolution model (Section 4.3), chosen to bracket Hyperfine acquisitions; hand-set, not fitted.
  • Bias field strength multiplier = 2x relative to prior model
    Chosen to simulate strong signal drops at low field (Section 4.3).
  • Deformation and rotation multipliers = 2x relative to prior model
    Chosen to model postmortem deformation and variable positioning (Section 4.3).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The domain-randomized generative model produces synthetic LF-MRI images whose contrast, resolution, noise, and artifacts are representative of real 64 mT portable MRI.
    The whole transfer-learning strategy depends on this (Section 4.3); only validated on Hyperfine data.
  • domain assumption FreeSurfer recon-all on 1 mm isotropic T1-weighted HF-MRI provides a valid reference for cortical surfaces.
    Used as the gold standard throughout Section 2; not an independent ground truth.
  • standard math Spherical registration to the fsaverage template yields vertex correspondence adequate for Dice computation.
    Section 4.3: parcellation Dice is computed after registering both surfaces to the common template.
  • domain assumption The 3D U-Net trained on synthetic data generalizes to real LF-MRI without retraining.
    Core premise of 'out of the box' use; empirically tested on a single scanner type.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Low Field to High Value: Robust Cortical Mapping from Low-Field MRI." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LAIUOBWZ

@misc{pith2026250512228,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Low Field to High Value: Robust Cortical Mapping from Low-Field MRI},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LAIUOBWZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12228}
}
read the original abstract

Three-dimensional reconstruction of cortical surfaces from MRI for morphometric analysis is fundamental for understanding brain structure. While high-field MRI (HF-MRI) is standard in research and clinical settings, its limited availability hinders widespread use. Low-field MRI (LF-MRI), particularly portable systems, offers a cost-effective and accessible alternative. However, existing cortical surface analysis tools are optimized for high-resolution HF-MRI and struggle with the lower signal-to-noise ratio and resolution of LF-MRI. In this work, we present a machine learning method for 3D reconstruction and analysis of portable LF-MRI across a range of contrasts and resolutions. Our method works "out of the box" without retraining. It uses a 3D U-Net trained on synthetic LF-MRI to predict signed distance functions of cortical surfaces, followed by geometric processing to ensure topological accuracy. We evaluate our method using paired HF/LF-MRI scans of the same subjects, showing that LF-MRI surface reconstruction accuracy depends on acquisition parameters, including contrast type (T1 vs T2), orientation (axial vs isotropic), and resolution. A 3mm isotropic T2-weighted scan acquired in under 4 minutes, yields strong agreement with HF-derived surfaces: surface area correlates at r=0.96, cortical parcellations reach Dice=0.98, and gray matter volume achieves r=0.93. Cortical thickness remains more challenging with correlations up to r=0.70, reflecting the difficulty of sub-mm precision with 3mm voxels. We further validate our method on challenging postmortem LF-MRI, demonstrating its robustness. Our method represents a step toward enabling cortical surface analysis on portable LF-MRI. Code is available at https://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/ReconAny

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Oxford university press, ??? (2005)

    Fuster, J.M.: Cortex and Mind: Unifying Cognition. Oxford university press, ??? (2005)

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    Current Biology 17(12), 443–449 (2007)

    Shipp, S.: Structure and function of the cerebral cortex. Current Biology 17(12), 443–449 (2007)

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Cerebral cortex 14(7), 721–730 (2004)

    Salat, D.H., Buckner, R.L., Snyder, A.Z., Greve, D.N., Desikan, R.S., Busa, E., Morris, J.C., Dale, A.M., Fischl, B.: Thinning of the cerebral cortex in aging. Cerebral cortex 14(7), 721–730 (2004)

    2004

  4. [4]

    Brain 132(8), 2036–2047 (2009)

    Querbes, O., Aubry, F., Pariente, J., Lotterie, J.-A., D´ emonet, J.-F.,et al.: Early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease using cortical thickness: impact of cognitive reserve. Brain 132(8), 2036–2047 (2009)

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Neurology 58(5), 695–701 (2002)

    Rosas, H., Liu, A., Hersch, S., Glessner, M., Ferrante, R., Salat, D., Der Kouwe, A., Jenkins, B., Dale, A., Fischl, B.: Regional and progressive thinning of the cortical ribbon in Huntington’s disease. Neurology 58(5), 695–701 (2002)

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    : Structural imaging biomarkers of alzheimer’s disease: predicting disease progression

    Eskildsen, S.F., Coup´ e, P., Fonov, V.S., Pruessner, J.C., Collins, D.L., Initiative, A.D.N., et al. : Structural imaging biomarkers of alzheimer’s disease: predicting disease progression. Neurobiology of aging 36, 23–31 (2015) 19

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    segmen- tation and surface reconstruction

    Dale, A.M., Fischl, B., Sereno, M.I.: Cortical surface-based analysis: I. segmen- tation and surface reconstruction. Neuroimage 9(2), 179–194 (1999)

    work page 1999

  8. [8]

    Neuroimage 9(2), 195–207 (1999)

    Fischl, B., Sereno, M., Dale, A.M.: Cortical surface-based analysis: II: inflation, flattening, and a surface-based coordinate system. Neuroimage 9(2), 195–207 (1999)

    work page 1999

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Neuroimage 99, 166–179 (2014)

    Tustison, N.J., Cook, P.A., Klein, A., Song, G., Das, S.R., Duda, J.T., Kandel, B.M., Strien, N., Stone, J.R., Gee, J.C., et al.: Large-scale evaluation of ants and freesurfer cortical thickness measurements. Neuroimage 99, 166–179 (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    Medical image analysis 6(2), 129–142 (2002)

    Shattuck, D.W., Leahy, R.M.: Brainsuite: an automated cortical surface identifi- cation tool. Medical image analysis 6(2), 129–142 (2002)

    2002

  3. [11]

    : Low-field (64 mt) portable mri for rapid point-of-care diagnosis of dissemination in space in patients presenting with optic neuritis

    Lim, T.R., Suthiphosuwan, S., Micieli, J., Vosoughi, R., Schneider, R., Lin, A.W., Chen, Y.A., Muccilli, A., Marriott, J.J., Selchen, D., et al. : Low-field (64 mt) portable mri for rapid point-of-care diagnosis of dissemination in space in patients presenting with optic neuri...

    2024

  4. [12]

    Scientific reports 12(1), 67 (2022)

    Sheth, K.N., Yuen, M.M., Mazurek, M.H., Cahn, B.A., Prabhat, A.M., Salehi, S., Shah, J.T., By, S., Welch, E.B., Sofka, M.,et al.: Bedside detection of intracranial midline shift using portable magnetic resonance imaging. Scientific reports 12(1), 67 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    : Portable, low-field magnetic resonance imaging enables highly accessible and dynamic bedside evaluation of ischemic stroke

    Yuen, M.M., Prabhat, A.M., Mazurek, M.H., Chavva, I.R., Crawford, A., Cahn, B.A., Beekman, R., Kim, J.A., Gobeske, K.T., Petersen, N.H., et al. : Portable, low-field magnetic resonance imaging enables highly accessible and dynamic bedside evaluation of ischemic stroke. Science...

    2022

  6. [14]

    Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 57(1), 25–44 (2023)

    Arnold, T.C., Freeman, C.W., Litt, B., Stein, J.M.: Low-field mri: clinical promise and challenges. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 57(1), 25–44 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    In: 2024 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), pp

    Laso, P., Cerri, S., Sorby-Adams, A., Guo, J., Mateen, F., Goebl, P., Wu, J., Liu, P., Li, H.B., Young, S.I., et al.: Quantifying white matter hyperintensity and brain volumes in heterogeneous clinical and low-field portable mri. In: 2024 IEEE International Symposium on Biomed...

    2024

  8. [16]

    In: Neurology, vol

    Shay, J., Nimjee, S., Forrest, C., Shujaat, M.T., Morales, J., Lee, V.: Portable bedside low-field magnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of ischemic strokes in patients admitted to inpatient floor units (p3-5.012). In: Neurology, vol. 102, p. 3445 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    In: Neurology, vol

    Zabinska, J., Yadlapalli, V., Mazurek, M., Parasuram, N., Lalwani, D., Peasley, E., Gilmore, E., Kim, J., Omay, S.B., Sze, G., et al.: Low-field, portable magnetic resonance imaging to assess hematoma volume in traumatic brain injury patients (p10-5.008). In: Neurology, vol. 1...

    2024

  10. [18]

    Nature Communications 15(1), 1–12 (2024)

    Sorby-Adams, A.J., Guo, J., Laso, P., Kirsch, J.E., Zabinska, J., Garcia Guarniz, A.-L., Schaefer, P.W., Payabvash, S., Havenon, A., Rosen, M.S., et al.: Portable, low-field magnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of alzheimer’s disease. Nature Communications 15(1), 1–12 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    NeuroImage 251, 118933 (2022)

    Henschel, L., K¨ ugler, D., Reuter, M.: Fastsurfervinn: Building resolution- independence into deep learning segmentation methods—a solution for highres brain mri. NeuroImage 251, 118933 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    In: CVPR, pp

    Bongratz, F., Rickmann, A.-M., P¨ olsterl, S., Wachinger, C.: Vox2Cortex: Fast explicit reconstruction of cortical surfaces from 3D MRI scans with geometric deep neural networks. In: CVPR, pp. 20773–20783 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    In: WACV, pp

    Cruz, R.S., Lebrat, L., Bourgeat, P., Fookes, C., Fripp, J., Salvado, O.: DeepCSR: A 3D deep learning approach for cortical surface reconstruction. In: WACV, pp. 806–815 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

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

    Gopinath, K., Greve, D.N., Das, S., Arnold, S., Magdamo, C., Iglesias, J.E.: Cortical analysis of heterogeneous clinical brain mri scans for large-scale neu- roimaging studies. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pp. 35–4...

    2023

  15. [23]

    IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 42(2), 430–443 (2022)

    Ma, Q., Li, L., Robinson, E.C., Kainz, B., Rueckert, D., Alansary, A.: Cor- texODE: Learning cortical surface reconstruction by neural ODEs. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 42(2), 430–443 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Proceedings of machine learning research 172, 508 (2022)

    Hoopes, A., Iglesias, J.E., Fischl, B., Greve, D., Dalca, A.V.: TopoFit: rapid reconstruction of topologically-correct cortical surfaces. Proceedings of machine learning research 172, 508 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    Science advances 9(5), 3607 (2023)

    Iglesias, J.E., Billot, B., Balbastre, Y., Magdamo, C., Arnold, S.E., Das, S., Edlow, B.L., Alexander, D.C., Golland, P., Fischl, B.: SynthSR: A public AI tool to turn heterogeneous clinical brain scans into high-resolution T1-weighted images for 3D morphometry. Science advanc...

    2023

  18. [26]

    Radiology 306(3), 220522 (2022)

    Iglesias, J.E., Schleicher, R., Laguna, S., Billot, B., Schaefer, P., McKaig, B., Goldstein, J.N., Sheth, K.N., Rosen, M.S., Kimberly, W.T.: Quantitative brain morphometry of portable low-field-strength MRI using super-resolution machine learning. Radiology 306(3), 220522 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    NeuroImage 31(3), 968–980 (2006)

    Desikan, R.S., S´ egonne, F., Fischl, B., Quinn, B.T., Dickerson, B.C., Blacker, D., Buckner, R.L., Dale, A.M., et al.: An automated labeling system for subdividing the human cerebral cortex on mri scans into gyral based regions of interest. NeuroImage 31(3), 968–980 (2006)

    2006

  20. [28]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03889 (2024)

    Gopinath, K., Greve, D.N., Magdamo, C., Arnold, S., Das, S., Puonti, O., Iglesias, J.E.: Recon-all-clinical: Cortical surface reconstruction and analysis of 21 heterogeneous clinical brain mri. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03889 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Neuroimage 80, 105–24 (2013)

    Glasser, M., Sotiropoulos, S., Wilson, J.A., Coalson, T.S.: The minimal prepro- cessing pipelines for the Human Connectome Project. Neuroimage 80, 105–24 (2013)

    2013

  22. [30]

    Whitwell, J., Ward, C.,et al.: The Alzheimer’s disease neuroimaging initiative (ADNI): MRI methods

    Jack Jr, C.R., Bernstein, M.A., Fox, N.C., Thompson, P., Alexander, G., Harvey, D., Borowski, B., Britson, P.J., L. Whitwell, J., Ward, C.,et al.: The Alzheimer’s disease neuroimaging initiative (ADNI): MRI methods. Journal of Magnetic Res- onance Imaging: An Official Journal ...

    2008

  23. [31]

    NeuroImage 143, 235– 249 (2016)

    Puonti, O., Iglesias, J.E., Van Leemput, K.: Fast and sequence-adaptive whole- brain segmentation using parametric bayesian modeling. NeuroImage 143, 235– 249 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    : Synthetic data in generalizable, learning-based neuroimaging

    Gopinath, K., Hoopes, A., Alexander, D.C., Arnold, S.E., Balbastre, Y., Bil- lot, B., Casamitjana, A., Cheng, Y., Chua, R.Y.Z., et al. : Synthetic data in generalizable, learning-based neuroimaging. Imaging Neuroscience2, 1–22 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    : Synthseg: Segmentation of brain mri scans of any contrast and resolution without retraining

    Billot, B., Greve, D.N., Puonti, O., Thielscher, A., Van Leemput, K., Fischl, B., Dalca, A.V., Iglesias, J.E., et al. : Synthseg: Segmentation of brain mri scans of any contrast and resolution without retraining. Medical image analysis 86, 102789 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    In: Med- ical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2016: 19th International Conference, Athens, Greece, October 17-21, 2016, Proceedings, Part II 19, pp

    C ¸ i¸ cek,¨O., Abdulkadir, A., Lienkamp, S.S., Brox, T., Ronneberger, O.: 3d u-net: learning dense volumetric segmentation from sparse annotation. In: Med- ical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2016: 19th International Conference, Athens, Greece, Octo...

    2016

  27. [35]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014)

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

    2014 arXiv

  28. [36]

    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

  29. [37]

    NeuroImage 62(2), 774–781 (2012)

    Fischl, B.: Freesurfer. NeuroImage 62(2), 774–781 (2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    : Automatically parcellating the human cerebral cortex

    Fischl, B., Kouwe, A.V.D., Destrieux, C., Halgren, E., S´ egonne, F., Salat, D.H., Busa, E., Seidman, L.J., Goldstein, J., Kennedy, D., et al. : Automatically parcellating the human cerebral cortex. Cerebral Cortex 14(1), 11–22 (2004) 22 A LF-MRI Sequence Parameters and Acquis...

    2004

Pith tools

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