Spherical Brownian Bridge Diffusion Models for Conditional Cortical Thickness Forecasting

Christian Wachinger; Fabian Bongratz; Ivan Stoyanov

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Spherical Brownian Bridge Diffusion Models for Conditional Cortical Thickness Forecasting

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A spherical Brownian bridge diffusion model forecasts vertex-level cortical thickness from a baseline scan and tabular covariates, cutting prediction error by about 10%.

desk verdict Solid applied diffusion paper; the math checks out after derivation, but the method section has contradictions and an under-specified recursion that need fixing before the results are fully reproducible. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.08442 v1 pith:M4MBVT4B submitted 2025-09-10 cs.CV cs.AIcs.LGq-bio.NC

Ivan Stoyanov , Fabian Bongratz , Christian Wachinger This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.LGq-bio.NC

keywords longitudinalpredictioncorticalthicknessdiffusionmodelsBrownianbridgesphericalU-Netcross-attentionAlzheimer'sdiseasecounterfactualtrajectories

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 introduces SBDM, a diffusion model that forecasts how an individual's cortical thickness will change at every vertex of the cortical surface. The central claim is that a conditional Brownian bridge—a stochastic path whose endpoints are the baseline thickness map and the future change map—can be learned directly on the spherical surface, and that it outperforms prior methods for this task. Reported mean absolute errors are 0.097 mm on ADNI and 0.100 mm on OASIS, roughly 10% below the best competing method, with Wilcoxon p < 10^-3 over both datasets. The same model can be conditioned on a target diagnosis to generate factual and counterfactual thickness trajectories. If the result holds, it offers a high-resolution, single-scan based tool for tracking neurodegeneration and exploring hypothetical disease courses.

What carries the argument

The central object is the conditional Brownian bridge on the sphere: q(x_beta | tau0, Delta_tau_t) = N(x_beta; (1 - m_beta) tau0 + m_beta Delta_tau_t, delta_beta I), with m_beta = beta/B and delta_beta = 2(m_beta - m_beta^2). Baseline thickness is one endpoint and the future change is the other; training asks the denoiser to reproduce the combined signal (1 - m_beta)(tau0 - Delta_tau_t) + sqrt(delta_beta) epsilon from x_beta. The companion architecture, CoS-UNet, lets the bridge live directly on the cortical surface: spherical convolutions preserve local geometry, cross-attention injects the tabular covariates and time interval at every stage, and the bridge step is added as an embedding.

What would settle it

Run Algorithm 2 on held-out training pairs with known future changes Delta_tau_t, starting from the true tau0, and compare the generated x_B against the true Delta_tau_t, or compare the empirical distribution against q(x_beta | tau0, Delta_tau_t). If the samples are systematically biased, the reported accuracy does not come from the Brownian bridge posterior. A quicker check: verify that the recursion's posterior mean for q(x_beta+1 | x_beta, tau0) equals the training loss target when the denoiser is perfect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, SBDM is the first Brownian bridge diffusion model for conditional vertex-level predictions on spherical surfaces. It maps between baseline cortical thickness tau0 and a future relative change Delta_tau_t via q(x_beta | tau0, Delta_tau_t), training a spherical U-Net with cross-attention to denoise the bridge at every step. Inference starts at tau0 and walks a non-Markovian recursion to produce Delta_tau_t. Across all diagnostic groups and both datasets, SBDM reports the lowest errors—0.097 mm on ADNI and 0.100 mm on OASIS—and statistically significant improvements over the compared baselines, and it produces plausible counterfactual trajectories when the follow-up di

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark gains rest on the assumption that Algorithm 2's recursion actually samples the conditional Brownian bridge that the model was trained on; the paper adapts the coefficients from the image-based BBDM 'in analogy' without deriving them for its modified denoising target, and the prose and Algorithm 1 disagree about the forward direction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Vertex-level cortical thickness forecasts from a single baseline scan plus tabular covariates reach about 0.1 mm mean absolute error, around 10% lower than the best reported baseline.
Because the model is a direct map between baseline and future change, predicting a follow-up visit does not require multiple prior visits or region-level aggregation.
The model transfers to an unseen dataset without retraining, with OASIS error close to the ADNI test error.
Conditioning on follow-up diagnosis produces factual and counterfactual trajectories, so the same architecture supports 'what if the diagnosis had been AD' simulations at the individual level.
Explicit time conditioning makes predictions feasible at arbitrary follow-up intervals, matching the irregular visit structure of real longitudinal studies.

Reading between the lines

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

The reported ablations change the denoising network while keeping the bridge; a same-backbone comparison between DDPM and BBDM would isolate how much of the ~10% gain comes from the Brownian bridge rather than the cross-attention architecture.
The same bridge formulation could be applied to other surface-valued longitudinal biomarkers, such as cortical volume, curvature, or myelin maps, because the geometry handling is in the network, not in the diffusion process.
The counterfactual diagnosis switch is associative rather than causal: diagnosis and disease trajectory co-evolve in reality, so the switched trajectories should be validated against observed converters before being used for clinical inference.
A testable extension is to check whether the counterfactual trajectories predict faster conversion in subjects who later convert to AD; if they do, the model captures disease-relevant signal beyond average aging.

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

Colleague,

Here's my take on arXiv:2509.08442. The paper does something straightforward but useful: it takes Brownian bridge diffusion (BBDM) and applies it to vertex-level cortical thickness forecasting, with a new spherical U-Net (CoS-UNet) that conditions on demographics, diagnosis, and follow-up time. The empirical work is honestly done: subject-level splits, external OASIS test, several baselines, ablations, and Wilcoxon tests. The reported ~10% MAE improvement over SiT is modest but consistent, and the external generalization is a nice plus.

The novelty is not in the stochastic process—that's BBDM unchanged. The new bits are the domain application, the CoS-UNet architecture, and the counterfactual trajectory generation. That's fine for an applied paper.

Soft spots: Section 3.1 states the forward process maps Δτ_t to τ0, while Algorithm 1 interpolates from τ0 to Δτ_t. That's a direct contradiction and needs fixing. More importantly, the reverse-sampling recursion in Algorithm 2 is given "in analogy to BBDM" without derivation. I checked the math: the coefficients do match the correct posterior when you substitute the training target, so the recursion is theoretically sound. But the pseudocode as written has division by zero at β=0 (δ0=0), and the limiting coefficients aren't provided. So the paper is not fully reproducible from the text. These are fixable in revision, but they're real gaps.

There's also no code released yet, so the empirical claims rest on the numbers as reported. The ablation study is useful—it shows CoS-UNet outperforms MLP, plain S-UNet, and SiT within the same bridge framework.

Overall, this is a solid applied diffusion paper with a credible but incremental advance. The central method holds up after derivation; the presentation needs a careful pass. I'd send it to peer review with the expectation of major revision on the method description. The authors should be asked to reconcile the forward/reverse direction, add a proper derivation of the recursion, and handle the β=0 edge case explicitly.

Who's it for: people working on longitudinal cortical morphology or conditional diffusion for medical imaging. I'd cite it if I were in that area.

Recommendation: accept for peer review, conditional on those revisions.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SBDM, a Brownian bridge diffusion model defined on spherical cortical surface representations, for forecasting vertex-level cortical thickness (CTh) changes from a baseline CTh map and tabular covariates (age, sex, diagnoses, time interval). The forward model interpolates between baseline CTh and a future relative change, with a newly introduced conditional spherical U-Net (CoS-UNet) as denoiser. Experiments on ADNI (subject-level split) and an external OASIS test set report mean absolute errors around 0.097–0.100 mm, about 10% better than the strongest baseline (SiT), with significant paired Wilcoxon tests (p < 10^-3), plus an ablation of the denoising architecture and counterfactual trajectory demonstrations.

Significance. If the method and empirical results hold, SBDM is a practically useful, transferable vertex-wise CTh forecaster, and the CoS-UNet architecture with dense cross-attention is a sensible design for fusing spherical surface data with tabular conditions. The paper deserves credit for a subject-level split, an external dataset without fine-tuning, paired statistical tests, and an ablation that isolates the denoiser contribution. The main weakness is that the method section is not fully reproducible: the direction of the Brownian bridge is described inconsistently, the inference recursion is stated without derivation, and the pseudocode contains a division-by-zero at the initial step. These are fixable, but they are load-bearing for the central claim, because the empirical gains rest on the correctness of the sampling recursion and its alignment with the training target.

major comments (3)

[§3.1, Eq. (1)–(2) and Algorithm 1, line 6] The prose states: “by definition, our forward process maps the relative change Δτ_t … and maps it to the baseline thickness τ_0 … Conversely, the reverse process reconstructs Δτ_t from τ_0.” But Eq. (1) with x_0=τ_0 and x_B=Δτ_t, and Algorithm 1 line 6 (x_β ← (1−m_β)τ_0 + m_β Δτ_t + √δ_β ϵ), define the opposite direction: the forward process maps τ_0 to Δτ_t. The direction convention is load-bearing because Algorithm 2 reverses this process; the text must be corrected.
[§3.1, Eq. (4)–(5) and Algorithm 2] The inference recursion is introduced “in analogy to the original BBDM” but no derivation is given for the modified setting, where the training target in Eq. (3) is (1−m_β)(τ_0−Δτ_t)+√δ_β ϵ (equivalently x_β−Δτ_t), not a pure noise term, and where τ_0 is a fixed condition. The paper should derive the posterior q(x_{β+1} | x_β, τ_0, Δτ_t), state the substitution Δτ_t ≈ x_β − f_θ(x_β), and show that the coefficients ζ_1, ζ_2, ζ_3, δ̃ follow. Without this, the reader cannot verify that Algorithm 2 samples the conditional bridge.
[Algorithm 2, lines 4–8] The pseudocode is not executable at β=0: δ_0=0 and m_0=0, so the expressions for δ_{β|β+1}, ζ_1, ζ_3, and δ̃ involve division by zero. The limiting values exist (e.g., ζ_1→1, ζ_2→0, ζ_3→m_1, δ̃→2m_1(1−m_1)), but they are not given. Because the loop starts at β=0, the implementation is underspecified. Please provide the limiting coefficients or start the recursion at β=1 with the appropriate initialization.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (3)] The text says the network recovers the “noise” from x_β, but the target is (1−m_β)(τ_0−Δτ_t)+√δ_β ϵ, which equals x_β−Δτ_t. Clarify this target and why it is not the pure diffusion noise.
[§4.1, Implementation Details] The non-Markovian sampling strategy is mentioned but not specified: how are the 200 sampled stages chosen, and how do the recursion coefficients adapt to skipped steps? This is needed for reproducibility.
[Table 1] OASIS has no MCI column (shown as “–”). The phrase “across all diagnostic groups and datasets” should be qualified as “all available diagnostic groups” to avoid overstatement.
[§4.2] The mean improvement over SiT is about 0.01 mm, which is 10% relative but small in absolute terms. Given the reported standard deviations (e.g., 0.097±0.031 vs. 0.108±0.028), please comment on the practical/clinical significance of this difference, beyond statistical significance.
[General] The code URL is given as “will be made available”; for review, a working repository or detailed hyperparameter/schedule listing would strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the empirical comparison is self-contained, with only minor self-citation and underived coefficients.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: SBDM 'achieves significantly reduced prediction errors' on held-out ADNI test and OASIS data. The training loss (Eq. 3) trains f_theta to recover (1-m_beta)(tau0 - Delta_tau_t) + sqrt(delta_beta) epsilon, and the evaluation metric is MAE between predicted and observed Delta_tau_t. No parameter is fitted to the MAE metric, and the test sets are unseen during training. The inverse recursion in Algorithm 2 is adopted 'in analogy to the original BBDM [12]' — an external method — and the coefficients are not derived in the paper. This is a missing derivation or reproducibility concern, not circularity, because it does not make the predicted Delta_tau_t equal to a fitted constant or to the loss target by construction. The only self-citation is CASHformer [20] in a related-work sentence about time conditioning; it does not support the central result. There is an internal inconsistency: the prose says the forward process maps Delta_tau_t to tau0, while Algorithm 1 interpolates x_beta from tau0 to Delta_tau_t; this is a correctness/consistency issue, not a circular reduction. Against external baselines (SiT, S-UNet, CTh-DDPM re-implemented), the reported gains are empirical and independent of the paper's own prior conclusions. No circularity is found beyond a minor non-load-bearing self-citation, so a low score is warranted.

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

The paper's central claim rests on the correctness of the Brownian bridge sampling procedure (not derived), the domain assumption that FsAverage vertex-wise registration is valid across time and subjects, the sufficiency of the chosen covariates, the representational capacity of CoS-UNet, and the transferability of ADNI-trained models to OASIS. Hyperparameters are standard training choices rather than fitted physical constants.

free parameters (5)

Bridge horizon B = 1000
Number of diffusion steps chosen manually; affects discretization error and training cost.
Inference sampling stages = 200
Subset of bridge steps used at generation, chosen for speed following Li et al.; affects sample quality.
Network width C = 64
Base channel count in CoS-UNet, a capacity hyperparameter.
Learning rate / schedule / EMA = 1e-4, plateau after 100 epochs, EMA
Training hyperparameters selected by validation performance.
Maximum training epochs = 2000
Training budget with early stopping on validation.

assumptions (6)

standard math The Brownian bridge forward process in Eq. 1 with variance delta_beta = 2(m_beta - m_beta^2) is a valid Gaussian interpolation between the two endpoints.
This is a standard Gaussian process construction, taken from BBDM, not derived in the paper.
ad hoc to paper The reverse sampling recursion in Algorithm 2 correctly computes the posterior transition for the modified loss target (Eq. 3).
The coefficients are stated without derivation; the paper says 'in analogy to original BBDM', but the loss target differs from standard BBDM, so correctness is an unproved assumption.
domain assumption Longitudinal FreeSurfer and FsAverage registration produce vertex-wise corresponding thickness measurements across timepoints and subjects.
The entire vertex-level pipeline depends on this registration validity; the paper invokes it in Section 4.1 but provides no internal validation of correspondence accuracy.
domain assumption The covariate set c = (age, sex, baseline diagnosis, follow-up diagnosis) plus time t is sufficient to condition the trajectory.
The model treats these inputs as the complete conditioning information; unobserved clinical or genetic factors are ignored.
domain assumption A neural network with the CoS-UNet architecture can approximate the conditional denoising function to the reported accuracy.
The paper relies on the universal approximation and generalization capacity of the trained network; this is a standard but unproven assumption.
domain assumption ADNI training data are representative enough that performance on OASIS reflects generalization rather than processing differences.
The external test assumes the FsAverage longitudinal processing and the condition distribution transfer across studies without retraining.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spherical Brownian Bridge Diffusion Models for Conditional Cortical Thickness Forecasting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M4MBVT4B

@misc{pith2026250908442,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spherical Brownian Bridge Diffusion Models for Conditional Cortical Thickness Forecasting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M4MBVT4B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08442}
}

read the original abstract

Accurate forecasting of individualized, high-resolution cortical thickness (CTh) trajectories is essential for detecting subtle cortical changes, providing invaluable insights into neurodegenerative processes and facilitating earlier and more precise intervention strategies. However, CTh forecasting is a challenging task due to the intricate non-Euclidean geometry of the cerebral cortex and the need to integrate multi-modal data for subject-specific predictions. To address these challenges, we introduce the Spherical Brownian Bridge Diffusion Model (SBDM). Specifically, we propose a bidirectional conditional Brownian bridge diffusion process to forecast CTh trajectories at the vertex level of registered cortical surfaces. Our technical contribution includes a new denoising model, the conditional spherical U-Net (CoS-UNet), which combines spherical convolutions and dense cross-attention to integrate cortical surfaces and tabular conditions seamlessly. Compared to previous approaches, SBDM achieves significantly reduced prediction errors, as demonstrated by our experiments based on longitudinal datasets from the ADNI and OASIS. Additionally, we demonstrate SBDM's ability to generate individual factual and counterfactual CTh trajectories, offering a novel framework for exploring hypothetical scenarios of cortical development.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08442 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Illustration of the proposed Spherical Brownian Bridge Diffusion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Illustration of the proposed Conditional Spherical U-Net (CoS-UNet). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Mean vertex-level prediction errors based on the ADNI test set. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Simulated CTh trajectories for three individuals with varying target di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[1]

NeuroImage66, 249–260 (Feb 2013)

Bernal-Rusiel, J.L., Greve, D.N., Reuter, M., Fischl, B., Sabuncu, M.R.: Statis- tical analysis of longitudinal neuroimage data with linear mixed effects models. NeuroImage66, 249–260 (Feb 2013)

work page 2013
[2]

In: 2021 IEEE 18th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI)

Chai, Y., Liu, M., Duffy, B.A., Kim, H.: Learning to synthesize cortical morpholog- ical changes using graph conditional variational autoencoder. In: 2021 IEEE 18th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI). p. 1495–1499. IEEE (Apr 2021) 12 I. Stoyanov, F. Bongratz, C. Wachinger

work page 2021
[3]

Cheng, J., Zhang, X., Zhao, F., Wu, Z., Yuan, X., Gilmore, J.H., Wang, L., Lin, W., Li, G.: Spherical Transformer on Cortical Surfaces, p. 406–415. Springer Nature Switzerland (2022)

work page 2022
[4]

In: Konukoglu, E., Menze, B., Venkataraman, A., Baumgartner, C., Dou, Q., Albarqouni, S

Dahan, S., Fawaz, A., Williams, L.Z.J., Yang, C., Coalson, T.S., Glasser, M.F., Ed- wards, A.D., Rueckert, D., Robinson, E.C.: Surface vision transformers: Attention- based modelling applied to cortical analysis. In: Konukoglu, E., Menze, B., Venkataraman, A., Baumgartner, C., Dou, Q., Albarqouni, S. (eds.) Proceedings of The 5th International Conference ...

work page 2022
[5]

Elfwing, S., Uchibe, E., Doya, K.: Sigmoid-weighted linear units for neural network functionapproximationinreinforcementlearning.NeuralNetworks107,3–11(Nov 2018)

work page 2018
[6]

NeuroImage62(2), 774–781 (2012)

Fischl, B.: FreeSurfer. NeuroImage62(2), 774–781 (2012)

work page 2012
[7]

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97(20), 11050–11055 (Sep 2000), publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Fischl, B., Dale, A.M.: Measuring the thickness of the human cerebral cortex from magnetic resonance images. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97(20), 11050–11055 (Sep 2000), publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

work page 2000
[8]

Human Brain Mapping 8(4), 272–284 (1999)

Fischl, B., Sereno, M.I., Tootell, R.B., Dale, A.M.: High-resolution intersubject averaging and a coordinate system for the cortical surface. Human Brain Mapping 8(4), 272–284 (1999)

work page 1999

Show all 30 references

[9]

Cortex158, 110–126 (Jan 2023)

Fürtjes, A.E., Cole, J.H., Couvy-Duchesne, B., Ritchie, S.J.: A quantified compar- ison of cortical atlases on the basis of trait morphometricity. Cortex158, 110–126 (Jan 2023)

2023
[10]

In: Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems

Ho, J., Jain, A., Abbeel, P.: Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models. In: Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems. vol. 33, pp. 6840–6851. Curran Associates, Inc. (2020)

2020
[11]

Lee, E., Jeong, S., Sohn, K.: EBDM: Exemplar-Guided Image Translation with Brownian-Bridge Diffusion Models, p. 306–323. Springer Nature Switzerland (Oct 2024)

2024
[12]

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

Li, B., Xue, K., Liu, B., Lai, Y.K.: Bbdm: Image-to-image translation with brow- nian bridge diffusion models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 1952–1961 (2023)

1952
[13]

NeuroImage192, 166–177 (May 2019)

Marinescu, R.V., Eshaghi, A., Lorenzi, M., Young, A.L., Oxtoby, N.P., Garbarino, S., Crutch, S.J., Alexander, D.C.: Dive: A spatiotemporal progression model of brain pathology in neurodegenerative disorders. NeuroImage192, 166–177 (May 2019)

2019
[14]

Neurobiology of Aging65, 98–108 (May 2018)

Poulakis, K., Pereira, J.B., Mecocci, P., Vellas, B., Tsolaki, M., Kłoszewska, I., Soininen, H., Lovestone, S., Simmons, A., Wahlund, L.O., Westman, E.: Heteroge- neous patterns of brain atrophy in alzheimer’s disease. Neurobiology of Aging65, 98–108 (May 2018)

2018
[15]

Journal of Neurology271(3), 1428–1438 (Mar 2024)

Pérez-Millan, A., Borrego-Écija, S., Falgàs, N., Juncà-Parella, J., Bosch, B., Tort- Merino, A., Antonell, A., Bargalló, N., Rami, L., Balasa, M., Lladó, A., Sala- Llonch, R., Sánchez-Valle, R.: Cortical thickness modeling and variability in Alzheimer’s disease and frontotempo...

2024
[16]

NeuroImage61(4), 1402–1418 (Jul 2012) Spherical Brownian Bridge Diffusion Model 13

Reuter, M., Schmansky, N.J., Rosas, H.D., Fischl, B.: Within-subject template estimation for unbiased longitudinal image analysis. NeuroImage61(4), 1402–1418 (Jul 2012) Spherical Brownian Bridge Diffusion Model 13

2012
[17]

Neurobiology of Aging 31(8), 1401–1418 (Aug 2010)

Risacher, S.L., Shen, L., West, J.D., Kim, S., McDonald, B.C., Beckett, L.A., Harvey, D.J., Jack, C.R., Weiner, M.W., Saykin, A.J.: Longitudinal mri atrophy biomarkers: Relationship to conversion in the adni cohort. Neurobiology of Aging 31(8), 1401–1418 (Aug 2010)

2010
[18]

In: 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

Rombach, R., Blattmann, A., Lorenz, D., Esser, P., Ommer, B.: High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In: 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). p. 10674–10685. IEEE (Jun 2022)

2022
[19]

Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., Brox, T.: U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomed- ical Image Segmentation, p. 234–241. Springer International Publishing (2015)

2015
[20]

Sarasua, I., Pölsterl, S., Wachinger, C.: CASHformer: Cognition Aware SHape Transformer for Longitudinal Analysis, p. 44–54. Springer Nature Switzerland (2022)

2022
[21]

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences99(7), 4703–4707 (Apr 2002)

Scahill, R.I., Schott, J.M., Stevens, J.M., Rossor, M.N., Fox, N.C.: Mapping the evolution of regional atrophy in alzheimer’s disease: Unbiased analysis of fluid- registered serial mri. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences99(7), 4703–4707 (Apr 2002)

2002
[22]

NeuroImage: Clinical11, 802–812 (Jan 2016)

Schwarz, C.G., Gunter, J.L., Wiste, H.J., Przybelski, S.A., Weigand, S.D., Ward, C.P., Senjem, M.L., Vemuri, P., Murray, M.E., Dickson, D.W., Parisi, J.E., Kantarci, K., Weiner, M.W., Petersen, R.C., Jack, C.R.: A large-scale compari- son of cortical thickness and volume metho...

2016
[23]

Brain129(11), 2885–2893 (Sep 2006)

Singh, V., Chertkow, H., Lerch, J.P., Evans, A.C., Dorr, A.E., Kabani, N.J.: Spatial patterns of cortical thinning in mild cognitive impairment and alzheimer’s disease. Brain129(11), 2885–2893 (Sep 2006)

2006
[24]

In: Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on International Conference on Machine Learning - Volume 37

Sohl-Dickstein, J., Weiss, E.A., Maheswaranathan, N., Ganguli, S.: Deep unsu- pervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. In: Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on International Conference on Machine Learning - Volume 37. p. 2256–2265. ICML’15, JMLR.org (2015)

2015
[25]

Song,J.,Meng,C.,Ermon,S.:Denoisingdiffusionimplicitmodels.In:International Conference on Learning Representations (2021)

2021
[26]

In: Computer Vision – ECCV 2018: 15th European Conference, Munich, Germany, September 8-14, 2018, Proceedings, Part XIII

Wu, Y., He, K.: Group normalization. In: Computer Vision – ECCV 2018: 15th European Conference, Munich, Germany, September 8-14, 2018, Proceedings, Part XIII. p. 3–19. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg (2018)

2018
[27]

In: Linguraru, M.G., Dou, Q., Feragen, A., Giannarou, S., Glocker, B., Lekadir, K., Schnabel, J.A

Xiao, Q., Yoon, S., Ren, H., Tivnan, M., Sun, L., Li, Q., Liu, T., Zhang, Y., Li, X.: Conditional Score-Based Diffusion Model for Cortical Thickness Trajectory Prediction. In: Linguraru, M.G., Dou, Q., Feragen, A., Giannarou, S., Glocker, B., Lekadir, K., Schnabel, J.A. (eds.)...

2024
[28]

In: Medical Imaging with Deep Learning (2024)

Xie, Z., Dahan, S., Williams, L.Z.J., Cardoso, M.J., Robinson, E.C.: Cortical sur- face diffusion generative models. In: Medical Imaging with Deep Learning (2024)

2024
[29]

Nature Reviews Neuroscience25(2), 111–130 (Jan 2024)

Young, A.L., Oxtoby, N.P., Garbarino, S., Fox, N.C., Barkhof, F., Schott, J.M., Alexander, D.C.: Data-driven modelling of neurodegenerative disease progression: thinking outside the black box. Nature Reviews Neuroscience25(2), 111–130 (Jan 2024)

2024
[30]

In: Chung, A.C.S., Gee, J.C., Yushkevich, P.A., Bao, S

Zhao, F., Xia, S., Wu, Z., Duan, D., Wang, L., Lin, W., Gilmore, J.H., Shen, D., Li, G.: Spherical U-Net on Cortical Surfaces: Methods and Applications. In: Chung, A.C.S., Gee, J.C., Yushkevich, P.A., Bao, S. (eds.) Information Processing in Medical Imaging. pp. 855–866. Sprin...

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

NeuroImage66, 249–260 (Feb 2013)

Bernal-Rusiel, J.L., Greve, D.N., Reuter, M., Fischl, B., Sabuncu, M.R.: Statis- tical analysis of longitudinal neuroimage data with linear mixed effects models. NeuroImage66, 249–260 (Feb 2013)

work page 2013

[2] [2]

In: 2021 IEEE 18th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI)

Chai, Y., Liu, M., Duffy, B.A., Kim, H.: Learning to synthesize cortical morpholog- ical changes using graph conditional variational autoencoder. In: 2021 IEEE 18th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI). p. 1495–1499. IEEE (Apr 2021) 12 I. Stoyanov, F. Bongratz, C. Wachinger

work page 2021

[3] [3]

Cheng, J., Zhang, X., Zhao, F., Wu, Z., Yuan, X., Gilmore, J.H., Wang, L., Lin, W., Li, G.: Spherical Transformer on Cortical Surfaces, p. 406–415. Springer Nature Switzerland (2022)

work page 2022

[4] [4]

In: Konukoglu, E., Menze, B., Venkataraman, A., Baumgartner, C., Dou, Q., Albarqouni, S

Dahan, S., Fawaz, A., Williams, L.Z.J., Yang, C., Coalson, T.S., Glasser, M.F., Ed- wards, A.D., Rueckert, D., Robinson, E.C.: Surface vision transformers: Attention- based modelling applied to cortical analysis. In: Konukoglu, E., Menze, B., Venkataraman, A., Baumgartner, C., Dou, Q., Albarqouni, S. (eds.) Proceedings of The 5th International Conference ...

work page 2022

[5] [5]

Elfwing, S., Uchibe, E., Doya, K.: Sigmoid-weighted linear units for neural network functionapproximationinreinforcementlearning.NeuralNetworks107,3–11(Nov 2018)

work page 2018

[6] [6]

NeuroImage62(2), 774–781 (2012)

Fischl, B.: FreeSurfer. NeuroImage62(2), 774–781 (2012)

work page 2012

[7] [7]

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97(20), 11050–11055 (Sep 2000), publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Fischl, B., Dale, A.M.: Measuring the thickness of the human cerebral cortex from magnetic resonance images. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97(20), 11050–11055 (Sep 2000), publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

work page 2000

[8] [8]

Human Brain Mapping 8(4), 272–284 (1999)

Fischl, B., Sereno, M.I., Tootell, R.B., Dale, A.M.: High-resolution intersubject averaging and a coordinate system for the cortical surface. Human Brain Mapping 8(4), 272–284 (1999)

work page 1999