Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 27 references

International Transfer of Stochastic Cortical Self-Reconstruction

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read SCSR, a cortical-thickness reference model trained only on UK Biobank adults, detects Alzheimer's and MCI atrophy in an independent Chinese cohort, with fine-tuning on local healthy scans raising the best average AUC from 0.815 to 0.848.

desk verdict A useful first external transfer study of SCSR to a Chinese cohort; the direct-transfer baseline is the solid result, while the fine-tuning AUC advantage is a point estimate that needs error bars before it carries weight. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07092 v1 pith:BT5D5UWT submitted 2026-08-07 cs.CV cs.AIcs.LGq-bio.NC

Fabian Bongratz , Zhizheng Zhuo , Chao Zhang , Yaou Liu , Dennis M. Hedderich , Christian Wachinger This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.LGq-bio.NC
keywords normativemodelingcorticalsurfacestransferlearningAlzheimer'sdiseaseatrophymildcognitiveimpairmentstochasticself-reconstructionsphericalUNet
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

SCSR is a reference model that learns the typical shape of the healthy cortex from a population, then gives each person a personalized healthy baseline by repeatedly reconstructing their own thickness map. The paper asks whether such a model, built only on healthy UK adults aged 45–82, transfers to an independent Chinese cohort aged 4–85 and to Chinese Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) patients. It claims yes: without any adaptation, the SUNet version separates cognitively normal controls from MCI and AD with average pairwise AUC (area under the ROC curve) of 0.815, and fine-tuning on 640 Chinese healthy scans raises that to 0.848, the best of eight configurations. Reconstruction error stays low across the lifespan even in age groups absent from training, which the paper reads as strong cross-population transferability.

What carries the argument

The central object is stochastic cortical self-reconstruction (SCSR), a normative reference model that builds a personalized healthy baseline from a subject's own cortex rather than from demographic covariates. During training a neural network learns to predict masked vertices of a cortical thickness map from a randomly sampled 20% of its vertices; at test time the sampling is repeated $m=100$ times and the per-vertex 95th centile across repetitions becomes the healthy reference $R$, yielding Z-scores $Z=(Y-R)/\sigma$ with $\sigma$ estimated from validation residuals. The paper runs this machinery with two backbones: a 20M-parameter multilayer perceptron with no spatial structure and a 1.7M-parameter Spherical UNet that convolves directly on an icosahedral mesh, and compares direct application, fine-tuning, training from scratch, and joint training on UK and Chinese data.

What would settle it

Compute the average pairwise AUC for all eight configurations on a larger, scanner- and demographically matched Chinese test set with bootstrapped confidence intervals; the paper's transfer claim holds up only if the directly applied UK-trained SUNet's 0.815 remains well above chance and statistically comparable to the fine-tuned 0.848, and collapses if the gap disappears or the direct model falls to chance under re-sampling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central empirical claim is that SCSR's healthy cortical reference transfers across international populations and across architectures. On the Chinese cohort, the directly applied UK-trained SUNet achieves an average pairwise AUC of 0.815 for CN vs MCI, CN vs AD, and MCI vs AD using mean Z-scores in the AD ROI, and fine-tuning the same model on the 640 Chinese healthy training scans improves this to 0.848. All eight configurations—two backbones times four adaptation strategies—stay above chance, and the SUNet backbone outperforms the much larger MLP for this downstream detection task while the MLP shows lower raw reconstruction error. The paper interprets this as evidence that population-specific adaptation is a modest, optional gain rather than a prerequisite, and that the choice of adaptation strategy should depend on the goal: fine-tuning for diagnostic discrimination, joint training for reconstruction fidelity across populations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 60 CN, 60 MCI, and 60 AD scans used for the AUC comparison are representative and internally balanced, so the reported fine-tuning advantage is not sampling noise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A UK-trained SCSR model can be applied to a new international cohort without retraining and still yield usable atrophy detection, with reconstruction error comparable to locally trained models.
  • For maximizing diagnostic separation between CN, MCI, and AD, fine-tuning the SUNet backbone on local healthy data is the best of the four strategies tested, ahead of joint training and training from scratch.
  • For maintaining reconstruction fidelity across both source and target populations, joint training on UK and Chinese data is the best configuration.
  • The SUNet backbone transfers better than a twelve-times-larger MLP: it stays accurate when trained from scratch on 640 subjects, while the scratch MLP overfits.
  • Age groups entirely missing from UK training data, such as children aged 4–20, show only mildly higher reconstruction error, so the reference generalizes beyond the training age range.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the paper leaves open is deploying the directly applied UK-trained model in a site with no local healthy training data, to see whether the 0.815 AUC generalizes to other scanners and populations.
  • The 60-subject-per-group test set means the 0.033 AUC gap between direct and fine-tuned SUNet could be sampling noise; re-estimating with confidence intervals is an editorial caution, not a paper claim.
  • Because the paper does not harmonize between acquisition sites, a version of this experiment with site-harmonized thickness maps would show whether the transfer signal is biological or partly scanner-specific.
  • Re-weighting the joint training so the small Chinese cohort counts more than the large UK cohort could close the MLP's joint-training deficit, a possibility the paper mentions but does not test.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper evaluates the transfer of Stochastic Cortical Self-Reconstruction (SCSR), a neural-network-based normative model of cortical thickness, from a UK Biobank-trained model to an independent Chinese cohort spanning ages 4–85. Eight configurations are compared (MLP vs. Spherical UNet; direct application, fine-tuning, scratch training, and joint training). The authors report reconstruction MAE across the lifespan and pairwise AUCs for CN/MCI/AD discrimination from SCSR Z-scores in an AD ROI. They claim robust atrophy detection across all configurations, with the fine-tuned SUNet achieving the best average AUC (0.848) followed by the UKB-trained SUNet (0.815), and strong cross-population transferability based on low reconstruction errors.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the paper provides valuable evidence that a self-reconstruction-based normative model can transfer across populations and detect AD/MCI-related atrophy without target-domain training, with practical implications for deploying such models on new international cohorts. The experimental design is clean: four adaptation strategies are compared systematically under two architectures, and the public code repository supports reproducibility. The main weakness is that the central quantitative claims rest on point estimates from 60 subjects per diagnostic group without confidence intervals, significance tests, or adjustment for potential confounds; these issues are fixable and do not invalidate the underlying approach.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, Table 2] The central claims that the fine-tuned SUNet achieves the highest average AUC (0.848) and that all eight configurations are 'clearly above chance' rest on point estimates from 60 subjects per diagnostic group with no confidence intervals, significance tests, or multiple-comparison correction. The fine-tuning advantage over direct application is driven mainly by the CN|MCI pair (0.787 vs. 0.718, +0.069); with n=60 per group, this difference is within plausible sampling variability (DeLong or bootstrap intervals would likely overlap substantially). Please report confidence intervals for all AUCs, test differences between configurations (e.g., DeLong or bootstrap with correction across the eight configurations), and assess the power of the current sample size.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Section 3.4] The manuscript states only that CN controls are 'age-matched (46–85 years)' and does not report per-group distributions of age, sex, education, scanner/site, or disease severity for the 60 CN, 60 MCI, and 60 AD subjects. If these variables differ across diagnostic groups, the reported AUCs—particularly CN|MCI (0.787 for the fine-tuned SUNet)—could reflect demographic or scanner confounds rather than atrophy. Please report these distributions for each diagnostic group and, if possible, provide analyses adjusted for age and sex, or at least demonstrate balance across groups.
  3. [Sections 3.1 and 4.2] The evaluation assumes that FreeSurfer thickness values are comparable across the UK Biobank and Chinese datasets without cross-site harmonization, even though scanner hardware and acquisition protocols differ between the populations. This assumption affects both the cross-population transferability claim and the comparison of training strategies, since fine-tuning on Chinese data may absorb site-specific biases. Please discuss or test this directly, for example by reporting scanner distributions per group, adding a site/scanner covariate in the analysis, or performing a sensitivity analysis on a subset matched for scanner characteristics.
  4. [Section 4.1 and Table 1] The abstract and conclusion claim 'strong cross-population transferability' partly based on reconstruction errors that are described as 'comparable' across populations, yet Table 1 shows a 40% relative increase in MAE for the direct MLP on Chinese data (0.359 mm) versus UKB validation (0.256 mm), and no statistical comparisons across cohorts or age brackets are provided. Please provide statistical comparisons (e.g., confidence intervals or tests for age-bracket differences) or temper the claim to reflect the observed magnitudes.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (3)] The validation set used to estimate sigma is not specified separately for each of the eight configurations; please clarify whether a distinct validation set was used for each training strategy and whether sigma differs across configurations.
  2. [Figures 3 and 4] The Z-score color scale is not shown in either figure; adding a colorbar and specifying the displayed hemisphere and anatomical views would improve interpretability of the atrophy maps.
  3. [Section 3.1] The text states '640 healthy scans for training/finetuning and 160 healthy scans for validation' but does not clarify whether the 139 lifespan test subjects and the 60 CN controls come from the same source pool or whether they overlap with the validation set; please make the data splits explicit.
  4. [Section 2] The related work on transfer learning would benefit from a comparison with recent cross-cohort normative modeling benchmarks in the neuroimaging literature, which would help position the contribution beyond the cited segmentation and shape classification studies.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No meaningful circularity: the study is an external-cohort benchmark, and the only self-citation is method attribution for SCSR, not a load-bearing circular premise.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an empirical evaluation rather than a derivation from fitted parameters. SCSR Z-scores are computed from a model trained on healthy subjects only; the diagnostic labels (CN, MCI, AD) are never used in training, fine-tuning, or validation. The one data-fitted scalar is sigma in Equation (3), estimated on the validation set, but sigma is a positive scalar normalization that does not affect the rank-based AUC, so it cannot force the reported discrimination. The reconstruction error in Equation (4) uses the same residual as the Z-score, but it is presented as a fidelity metric, not as an independent prediction. The method itself is attributed to the authors' prior SCSR paper [20] and the public SCSR repository; this is ordinary method citation, and the current paper's contribution is transferability to an independent Chinese cohort, which is externally benchmarked against diagnostic status. The lack of confidence intervals and the reliance on 60 subjects per group are statistical robustness concerns, not circularity. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The paper is therefore self-contained with respect to its empirical claims, with at most a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation of the original SCSR method.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new entities are postulated. The only data-fitted scalar is sigma in the Z-score formula; model weights are trained rather than hand-set and are not counted as free parameters. The remaining assumptions are domain-level: data comparability, label validity, ROI validity, fixed SCSR hyperparameters, and the healthy-reference interpretation of SCSR.

free parameters (1)
  • sigma, residual standard deviation for Z-scoring = not reported per configuration; estimated on validation set
    Equation (3) divides Y-R by sigma, which is estimated from reconstruction residuals on the validation set for each configuration. This scalar scales every Z-score used to compute the reported AUC values, so the central numbers depend on a data-fitted quantity, although it is not fitted to diagnostic labels.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption FreeSurfer spherical registration and icosahedral resampling produce vertex-wise thickness maps that are comparable across UKB and Chinese scans.
    Section 3.1 preprocessing; all cross-population comparisons assume thickness measurements are not systematically biased by scanner or protocol.
  • domain assumption Diagnostic labels CN, MCI, and AD in the Chinese dataset are clinically accurate.
    Section 3.4 uses these labels as ground truth for AUC; label noise directly degrades the reported discrimination scores.
  • domain assumption The AD ROI defined in Section 3.4 is a valid summary region for AD and MCI atrophy.
    Mean Z-score within this ROI is the only input to the AUC; if atrophy manifests outside the ROI or the ROI is not transferable to Chinese brains, the AUC values change.
  • domain assumption SCSR hyperparameters, sampling rate s=0.20, m=100 repetitions, and reconstruction centile q=0.95, fixed from the original SCSR paper, are appropriate for the Chinese cohort without retuning.
    Section 3.2 adopts these values unchanged; the transfer conclusions are conditional on them.
  • domain assumption The SCSR reconstruction reference approximates a healthy individualized phenotype, so Y-R reflects atrophy.
    This is the core assumption of the method from reference [20], carried over unchanged; it is not revalidated against histology or clinical gold standard in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of International Transfer of Stochastic Cortical Self-Reconstruction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BT5D5UWT

@misc{pith2026260807092,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: International Transfer of Stochastic Cortical Self-Reconstruction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BT5D5UWT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07092}
}
read the original abstract

Stochastic cortical self-reconstruction (SCSR) enables personalized mapping of gray matter atrophy, a hallmark of neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease (AD), onto high-resolution cortical surfaces. Unlike conventional normative modeling approaches, which typically operate at a coarse regional level and remain inherently constrained by the covariates included during training, SCSR estimates an individualized healthy reference directly from the observed cortical thickness at the vertex level. This allows the detection of subtle, subject-specific deviations from healthy cortical shape. In this work, we investigate the generalization and transferability of SCSR, originally trained on UK Biobank (UKB) data, to an independent Chinese population dataset. Specifically, we evaluate the ability of SCSR-derived Z-scores to discriminate between healthy scans, individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and patients with AD, while also assessing model robustness across the lifespan. We compare four training strategies: direct application of the UKB-trained model, fine-tuning on Chinese data, training from scratch, and joint training on UKB and Chinese cohorts. As reconstruction backbones, we consider both a multilayer perceptron (MLP) and a Spherical UNet (SUNet). Our results demonstrate that SCSR provides robust detection of cortical atrophy in the Chinese population across all evaluated models. The highest discriminative performance was achieved by the fine-tuned SUNet model (average pairwise AUC = 0.848), followed closely by the UKB-trained SUNet. Moreover, reconstruction errors remained low across the lifespan, even when the training population exhibited a substantially narrower age distribution, indicating strong cross-population transferability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07092 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We study two different neural network architectures for the reconstruc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of the mean absolute reconstruction error per subject on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Vertex-wise group mean SCSR Z-scores for the three diagnostic groups: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Individual SCSR Z-score maps computed based on three subjects from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [20]

    Medical Image Analysis107, 103788 (Jan 2026)

    Wachinger, C., Hedderich, D.M., Thalhammer, M., Bongratz, F.: Individualized mapping of aberrant cortical thickness via stochastic cortical self-reconstruction. Medical Image Analysis107, 103788 (Jan 2026)

    work page 2026

  2. [27]

    Nature Neuroscience29(2), 420–434 (Dec 2025)

    Zhuo, Z., Chai, L., Wang, Y., Gao, P., Xu, X., Ai, L., Ao, F., Bai, Y., Bai, Y., Cole, J.H., Bao, H., Cai, Q., Cao, J., Chen, F., Chen, F., Chen, K., Chen, Y., Cheng, D., Cui, Z., Dai, H., Deng, D., Du, Y., Fan, G., Fu, Y., Gao, Z., Gou, L., Guo, C., Guo, M., Guo, Y., Han, X., He, H., Hou, Y., Hu, B., Hu, J., Huang, C.C., Huang, P., Lei, J., Li, H.J., Li,...

    work page 2025

  3. [1]

    Nature604(7906), 525–533 (2022)

    Bethlehem, R.A., Seidlitz, J., White, S.R., Vogel, J.W., Anderson, K.M., Adamson, C., Adler, S., Alexopoulos, G.S., Anagnostou, E., Areces-Gonzalez, A., et al.: Brain charts for the human lifespan. Nature604(7906), 525–533 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [2]

    Borghi, E., de Onis, M., Garza, C., Van den Broeck, J., Frongillo, E.A., Grummer- Strawn, L., Van Buuren, S., Pan, H., Molinari, L., Martorell, R., Onyango, A.W., Martines, J.C.: Construction of the world health organization child growth stan- dards:selectionofmethodsforattainedgrowthcurves.StatisticsinMedicine25(2), 247–265 (2005)

    work page 2005

  5. [3]

    In: Machine Learning in Medical Imaging

    Cheng, J., Zhang, X., Zhao, F., Wu, Z., Yuan, X., Gilmore, J.H., Wang, L., Lin, W., Li, G.: Spherical transformer on cortical surfaces. In: Machine Learning in Medical Imaging. p. 406–415. Springer Nature Switzerland (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [4]

    In: Proceedings of The 5th Interna- tional Conference on Medical Imaging with Deep Learning

    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: Proceedings of The 5th Interna- tional Conference on Medical Imaging with Deep Learning. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 172,...

    work page 2022

  7. [5]

    Molecular psy- chiatry27(4), 2052–2060 (2022)

    Di Biase, M.A., Geaghan, M.P., Reay, W.R., Seidlitz, J., Weickert, C.S., Pébay, A., Green, M.J., Quidé, Y., Atkins, J.R., Coleman, M.J., et al.: Cell type-specific manifestations of cortical thickness heterogeneity in schizophrenia. Molecular psy- chiatry27(4), 2052–2060 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [6]

    Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience5(2013)

    Dickerson, B.: Biomarker-based prediction of progression in mci: comparison of ad signature and hippocampal volume with spinal fluid amyloid-βand tau. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience5(2013)

    work page 2013

Show all 27 references
  1. [7]

    Brain130(4), 1159–1166 (2007)

    Du, A.T., Schuff, N., Kramer, J.H., Rosen, H.J., Gorno-Tempini, M.L., Rankin, K., Miller, B.L., Weiner, M.W.: Different regional patterns of cortical thinning in alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal dementia. Brain130(4), 1159–1166 (2007)

    2007

  2. [8]

    Neuroimage62(2), 774–781 (2012)

    Fischl, B.: Freesurfer. Neuroimage62(2), 774–781 (2012)

    2012

  3. [9]

    Human brain mapping43(1), 431–451 (2022)

    Frangou, S., Modabbernia, A., Williams, S.C., Papachristou, E., Doucet, G.E., Agartz, I., Aghajani, M., Akudjedu, T.N., Albajes-Eizagirre, A., Alnæs, D., et al.: Cortical thickness across the lifespan: Data from 17,075 healthy individuals aged 3–90 years. Human brain mapping43...

    2022

  4. [10]

    Cerebral Cortex 32(14), 2972–2984 (Nov 2021)

    Gao, K., Fan, Z., Su, J., Zeng, L.L., Shen, H., Zhu, J., Hu, D.: Deep transfer learn- ing for cerebral cortex using area-preserving geometry mapping. Cerebral Cortex 32(14), 2972–2984 (Nov 2021)

    2021

  5. [11]

    Nature communications11(1), 2624 (2020)

    Littlejohns, T.J., Holliday, J., Gibson, L.M., et al.: The uk biobank imaging en- hancement of 100,000 participants: rationale, data collection, management and future directions. Nature communications11(1), 2624 (2020)

    2020

  6. [12]

    Molecular psychiatry24(10), 1415–1424 (2019)

    Marquand, A.F., Kia, S.M., Zabihi, M., Wolfers, T., Buitelaar, J.K., Beckmann, C.F.: Conceptualizing mental disorders as deviations from normative functioning. Molecular psychiatry24(10), 1415–1424 (2019)

    2019

  7. [13]

    Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics 54(3), 507–554 (2005)

    Rigby, R.A., Stasinopoulos, D.M.: Generalized additive models for location, scale and shape. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics 54(3), 507–554 (2005)

    2005

  8. [14]

    In: Seminars in neurology

    Risacher, S.L., Saykin, A.J.: Neuroimaging biomarkers of neurodegenerative dis- eases and dementia. In: Seminars in neurology. pp. 386–416 (2013)

    2013

  9. [15]

    Nature protocols17(7), 1711–1734 (2022)

    Rutherford, S., Kia, S.M., Wolfers, T., Fraza, C., Zabihi, M., Dinga, R., Berthet, P., Worker, A., Verdi, S., Ruhe, H.G., et al.: The normative modeling framework for computational psychiatry. Nature protocols17(7), 1711–1734 (2022)

    2022

  10. [16]

    Neuroradiology68(2), 469–482 (Dec 2025)

    Schmitz-Koep, B., Schultz, V., Bongratz, F., Menegaux, A., Thalhammer, M., Schramm, S., Kim, S.H., Zimmer, C., Sorg, C., Wachinger, C., Giannakopoulos, P., Montandon, M.L., Rodriguez, C., Haller, S., Hedderich, D.M.: Longitudinal assessment of cortical thickness in healthy old...

    2025

  11. [17]

    NeuroImage: Clinical11, 802–812 (2016)

    Schwarz, C.G., Gunter, J.L., Wiste, H.J., et al.: A large-scale comparison of cor- tical thickness and volume methods for measuring alzheimer’s disease severity. NeuroImage: Clinical11, 802–812 (2016)

    2016

  12. [18]

    Nature Communications16(1) (2025)

    Thalhammer, M., Seidlitz, J., Neubauer, A., Menegaux, A., Schmitz-Koep, B., Di Biase, M.A., Schulz, J., Dorfschmidt, L., Bethlehem, R.A.I., Alexander-Bloch, A., Adamson, C., Ball, G., Sa de Almeida, J., Beare, R., Zimmer, C., Daamen, M., Boecker, H., Bartmann, P., Wolke, D., H...

    2025

  13. [19]

    Translational Psychiatry16(1) (Mar 2026)

    Volkmer, S., Kubera, K.M., Fritze, S., Brandt, G., Akkoc Altinok, D.C., Daub, J., Kukovic, J., Böttcher, K.T., Berhe, O., Lin, Y., Tost, H., Marquand, A.F., Meyer- Lindenberg, A., Schwarz, E., Hirjak, D.: Normative age-related structural brain deviations underlying psychopatho...

    2026

  14. [21]

    npj Digital Medicine9(1), 505 (2026)

    Wachinger, C., Renger, B., Späth, C., Kirschke, J., Makowski, M.: Whole body ct attenuation and volume charts from routine clinical scans via llm report filtering. npj Digital Medicine9(1), 505 (2026)

    2026

  15. [22]

    Radiology: Artificial Intelligence8(2), e250506 (2025)

    Wachinger, C., Renger, B., Späth, C., Makowski, M.R.: Body charts from ct seg- mentations across the adult lifespan: large-scale cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Radiology: Artificial Intelligence8(2), e250506 (2025)

    2025

  16. [23]

    Medical Image Analysis67, 101879 (2021)

    Wachinger, C., Rieckmann, A., Pölsterl, S., Initiative, A.D.N., et al.: Detect and correct bias in multi-site neuroimaging datasets. Medical Image Analysis67, 101879 (2021)

    2021

  17. [24]

    Wu, J., Wen, Z., Zhou, H., Sun, N., Zhang, Y.: Geometric-topological deep transfer learningforprecisevesselsegmentationin3dmedicalvolumes.npjDigitalMedicine 9(1) (Jan 2026)

    2026

  18. [25]

    Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuro- science and Neuroimaging4(6), 567–578 (2019)

    Zabihi, M., Oldehinkel, M., Wolfers, T., Frouin, V., Goyard, D., Loth, E., Char- man, T., Tillmann, J., Banaschewski, T., Dumas, G., Holt, R., Baron-Cohen, S., Durston, S., Bölte, S., Murphy, D., Ecker, C., Buitelaar, J.K., Beckmann, C.F., Marquand, A.F.: Dissecting the hetero...

    2019

  19. [26]

    In: Information Processing in Medical Imaging

    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: Information Processing in Medical Imaging. p. 855–866 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.