Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 52 references

SCALP: Semi-Supervised Statistical Shape Modeling from Imperfect 3D Photogrammetry via Landmark-Anchored Spectral Warp

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a two-stage pipeline—semi-supervised landmark localization plus a band-limited Laplace–Beltrami template warp—constructs statistical shape models directly from raw, unsegmented infant photogrammetry scans, outperformin

desk verdict Useful integration with dramatic empirical gains, but the 'no folding by construction' guarantee is unsupported and the rank r is tuned on the test set. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.00187 v1 pith:R575EOXQ submitted 2026-07-31 cs.CV cs.LG

Nawazish Khan , Sanjay Bhandari , Sarang Joshi , Alzbeta Novotna , Tiffany Jeong , Loretta Bowman , Michael Hernandez , Tobi Somorin
show 3 more authors
Viraj Govani Jesse Glodstein Shireen Elhabian
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.LG
keywords statisticalshapemodelingphotogrammetrycraniosynostosisLaplace–Beltramioperatorlandmarklocalizationsemi-supervisedlearningspectraldeformationdensecorrespondence
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

SCALP is a two-stage framework for turning raw 3D photogrammetry of infant heads into dense anatomical correspondence. Stage I learns 23 craniofacial landmarks from 50 manually annotated scans plus a larger unlabeled cohort. Stage II deforms a normative head template within its own low-frequency Laplace–Beltrami eigenbasis, anchored by those landmarks. The paper's central claim is that restricting deformation to low-frequency modes eliminates mesh folding by construction and isolates the cranium from neck, shoulder, and noise clutter, yielding shape models with much lower generalization and specificity errors than unsupervised point-cloud baselines. If correct, this removes the manual preprocessing bottleneck that has kept radiation-free photogrammetry from replacing CT in longitudinal craniosynostosis monitoring.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Laplace–Beltrami eigenbasis of the template mesh: the eigenvectors of its cotangent Laplacian, ordered by eigenvalue, from global shapes to fine detail. By parameterizing the deformation as V0 + ΦW with only the first r modes, the optimization space itself excludes high-frequency folding, and the eigenvalue-weighted regularizer biases the fit toward coarse cranial shape. The predicted landmarks pull specific template vertices to anatomically meaningful targets, tying the smooth spectral fit to clinical anatomy.

What would settle it

A decisive test: on a cohort of severe metopic or sagittal craniosynostosis patients with CT ground truth, measure whether the reconstructed photogrammetry surface captures the pathological keel or scaphocephalic elongation. If errors cluster at high-curvature pathological features and persist as the band limit r is increased without a matching improvement in shape-model quality, the low-frequency basis is not expressive enough. Also, re-running the pipeline with a deliberately different normative template (e.g., an adult head) and observing mesh collapse or gross misalignment would falsify th

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

SCALP argues that dense, anatomically consistent statistical shape models can be produced from imperfect, unsegmented surface scans without manual cleanup, by combining sparse clinical landmark guidance with a spectral deformation space. The landmark detector supplies anatomical anchors using a small expert-annotated set, and the spectral warp—optimizing only the first r eigenfunctions of the template's Laplace–Beltrami operator—acts as a hard geometric prior. This makes the fit robust to missing regions and peripheral clutter, and the resulting statistical model captures clinically meaningful modes of variation (overall head size, cephalic index, mid-facial shape) rather than scanner noise.

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline depends most on the assumption that the template's low-frequency eigenbasis is expressive enough to represent every target anatomy in the cohort—including severe deformities like metopic craniosynostosis—and that fitting by Chamfer distance alone does not land in a wrong deformation basin; the paper itself notes that the warp becomes sensitive if the template deviates too far from the cohort.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Raw photogrammetry scans, without segmentation or manual preprocessing, can be converted into cranial-only correspondence particles ready for downstream statistical shape analysis.
  • A small labeled set (50 subjects) plus unlabeled scans suffices; the semi-supervised Stage I outperforms a matched supervised version on landmark accuracy and downstream shape-model metrics.
  • The band-limited spectral warp prevents high-frequency folding in the presence of severe missing data and clutter, a failure mode that spatial methods like thin-plate splines exhibit.
  • The resulting PCA shape space has high compactness, generalization, and specificity, with principal modes corresponding to clinically relevant head shape variations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the hard-constraint claim holds, the band limit r becomes a principled, population-specific hyperparameter: one could estimate the required spectral content from a CT-derived atlas, then apply it to photogrammetry, yielding a testable transfer rule.
  • The two-stage recipe may generalize to other craniofacial conditions (e.g., plagiocephaly, cleft lip/palate) or other anatomies wherever a normative template and sparse landmarks exist, suggesting a general pathway for radiation-free longitudinal shape monitoring.
  • The current evidence is geometric rather than clinical; direct validation would compare SCALP-derived severity scores against CT-based scores on the same patients, which the paper lists as future work.
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. SCALP proposes a two-stage pipeline for constructing statistical shape models directly from unprocessed infant photogrammetry scans. Stage I localizes 23 craniofacial landmarks using a semi-supervised Point Transformer v2 with Hough voting, trained on 50 expert-annotated subjects plus a larger unlabeled cohort. Stage II deforms a normative template mesh by optimizing coefficients in a truncated Laplace–Beltrami eigenbasis, anchored by the predicted landmarks and matched to the target scan via two-way Chamfer distance. The authors evaluate on 13 held-out subjects against six unsupervised correspondence baselines, reporting substantially lower landmark error, surface-fit error, and better compactness/generalization/specificity. Ablations compare semi-supervised vs. supervised Stage I, spectral vs. TPS warping, oracle vs. predicted landmarks, and the truncation rank r.

Significance. The clinical problem is well-motivated: CT-free craniosynostosis assessment requires dense correspondence from imperfect photogrammetry, and existing pipelines require manual preprocessing or fail on peripheral clutter. If the reported results hold, SCALP would be a practically valuable step toward automated, radiation-free longitudinal monitoring. The paper's strengths include a systematic comparison against six published baselines, internally consistent ablations on the semi-supervised component and the spectral warp, and a clinically meaningful evaluation protocol. The main load-bearing theoretical claim—that optimizing in a band-limited eigenbasis eliminates folding 'by construction'—is asserted without proof and, as stated, is not correct. In addition, the spectral truncation rank r is selected using the held-out test cohort, which compromises the reported generalization numbers. These issues are fixable, but they affect the central claims and require a revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.3, Eq. (7)–(10); Sec. 1 (contribution bullet)] The claim that optimizing within the first r Laplace–Beltrami eigenfunctions 'eliminates high-frequency mesh folding by construction' is not established. Eq. (7), Vdef = V0 + ΦW, constrains the displacement field to a low-dimensional subspace, but local injectivity requires det(I + ∇(ΦW)) > 0 at every vertex. A band-limited displacement with large coefficients can have arbitrarily large gradient and can fold the surface. Eq. (10)'s eigenvalue-weighted penalty is a soft regularizer, not a hard bound on the C1 norm, and the two-way Chamfer term can drive coefficients large under severe partiality. The paper should either prove a precise injectivity guarantee, state a weaker formal property (e.g., bounded displacement energy), or add a numerical check such as the minimum Jacobian determinant on all test subjects. Without this, the 'mathematical robustness guarantee' in Sec. 1 and the relate
  2. [Supplementary Material, Table 5; Sec. 4 (test split description)] The spectral truncation rank r=120 is chosen by evaluating Table 5's metrics on the 13 held-out test subjects. The main text states that test subjects are 'strictly excluded from all training, model selection, and pseudo-labeling,' yet the r ablation uses test-cohort metrics to select a hyperparameter. This is test-set leakage and inflates the reported SSM generalization/specificity numbers. The rank should be selected on a validation split (or via nested CV) and the final test numbers re-reported with r frozen. Additionally, the table text claims that increasing r from 64 to 200 steadily reduces P2S and Warp S2S, but the r=120 row shows P2S=1.478 and Warp S2S=1.456, which are worse than at r=100; please reconcile or correct this non-monotonicity.
  3. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (4)–(6)] The Stage I contribution is described as combining 'confidence-filtered pseudo-labeling' with a Mean Teacher consistency objective, but no pseudo-label loss or confidence threshold appears in the training objective. The only unsupervised term is Lcons on bottleneck features (Eq. 5). The paper never specifies how pseudo-labels are generated, filtered, or weighted. Since this is a central claimed contribution and is used in the ablations (which say 'disabling ... pseudo-labeling'), the full objective and the confidence-filtering procedure must be provided; otherwise the semi-supervised method is not reproducible.
  4. [Sec. 4.3 (comparison protocol)] The comparison against unsupervised baselines may be skewed by the evaluation protocol. Baseline particles are estimated on raw scans and then filtered by a template bounding box after ICP alignment, whereas SCALP's particles are generated on the template ROI by construction. If the experiment is meant to demonstrate robustness to peripheral clutter, the baselines should be scored on the same cropped region in an identical manner, or the post-hoc ROI filtering should be justified as not discarding meaningful baseline correspondences. Currently the large P2S/LLE gaps in Table 2 could partially reflect this protocol difference rather than only anatomical awareness.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (3)] The notation for L_offset appears to omit the square on the 2-norm: it is written as ||...||_2, not ||...||_2^2, despite being described as an offset regression loss. Please standardize.
  2. [Sec. 4.4] The phrase 'often by multiple orders of magnitude' is inaccurate for the reported numbers: P2S 1.478 vs. 13.348 is about a 9x improvement, which is less than an order of magnitude. Rephrase to 'substantially' or 'roughly an order of magnitude.'
  3. [Fig. 2 caption / Sec. 4.4] Minor grammar: 'Fig. 2 summarizes' should be 'Fig. 2 summarizes' (subject-verb agreement is fine; the issue is elsewhere: 'summarizes' vs 'summarize' in context). More importantly, please label units in Table 2's SSM metrics (all in mm where applicable).
  4. [Sec. 3.2] The sharpening temperature τ in Eq. (2) is introduced but its role is not discussed. If τ is small, the softmax becomes peaked; please state the chosen value and whether it is fixed or annealed.
  5. [Sec. 5 / Limitations] The limitations paragraph acknowledges sensitivity to template mismatch and severe posterior missingness. This is honest and useful, but it directly undercuts the universal 'by construction' guarantee in Sec. 1. Please revise the language to match the actual scope, e.g., 'reduces high-frequency deformation' rather than 'eliminates folding by construction.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: SCALP is an independently evaluated empirical pipeline; the unsupported folding guarantee is a correctness concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an empirical two-stage pipeline with no fitted parameter relabeled as a prediction. Stage I trains a landmark detector on 50 labeled subjects via Eqs. (1)-(6) and evaluates on 13 held-out subjects (Sec. 4). Stage II solves for spectral coefficients W in Eq. (7) by minimizing an objective (Eq. 8) with surface-fit, smoothness, and landmark terms (Eqs. 9-11); these are standard optimization losses, not inversions of the evaluation metrics. The reported metrics (P2S, Warp S2S, LLE, compactness, generalization, specificity) are measured against held-out geometry and manual annotations, not generated by the same fitted quantities. Although Eq. (11) ties template landmarks to predicted landmarks, so a low LLE is partly inherited from Stage I localization, this is an evaluation-design property of a landmark-anchored method, not a circular derivation: the dense correspondence on the full template is a nontrivial output, and the main SSM metrics do not reduce to landmark accuracy. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present: Point2SSM/++ and Mesh2SSM/++ are used only as comparison baselines, and the template is drawn from an external public toolbox ([1,3,41]). The Sec. 1/Sec. 3.3 assertion that band-limiting 'rules out high-frequency folding outright' is mathematically under-supported, and Sec. 5 explicitly concedes sensitivity to template deviation and posterior missingness, but that is a correctness/robustness concern, not a circular reduction of an output to its input.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

SCALP introduces no new physical entities. It relies on several tuned hyperparameters and domain assumptions about spectral deformation; no formal proofs are supplied.

free parameters (4)
  • Spectral truncation rank r = 120
    Number of LBO eigenmodes used for deformation; selected via ablation trading surface fit against SSM metrics (Supplement Table 5).
  • Loss weights λ_reg, β_lm, λ_c, λ_u = not specified
    Unspecified weighting of smoothness, landmark, confidence, and consistency terms in Eqs. (6) and (8).
  • Heatmap bandwidth σ and sharpening temperature τ = not specified
    Controls landmark vote aggregation in Stage I (Eqs. 1-2).
  • Coarse-to-fine mode schedule and reverse-Chamfer activation point = not specified
    Heuristics governing optimization dynamics; not derived.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The template's low-frequency LBO eigenbasis spans the population's clinically relevant shape variation.
    Stage II restricts deformation to first r eigenmodes; if the template is far from target anatomy, fitting degrades (paper's stated limitation, Sec. 5).
  • domain assumption Band-limiting prevents non-rigid folding/self-intersection of the deformed mesh.
    The paper asserts a 'mathematical robustness guarantee' but provides no theorem; low-frequency coordinate fields can still develop local Jacobian singularities under large deformations.
  • domain assumption Cotangent Laplacian on a clean template transfers to noisy/partial targets via Chamfer fitting.
    The spectral warp is computed only on the template; the target is represented by unorganized points. The assumption that such fitting recovers anatomical correspondence is central to Stage II.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SCALP: Semi-Supervised Statistical Shape Modeling from Imperfect 3D Photogrammetry via Landmark-Anchored Spectral Warp." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R575EOXQ

@misc{pith2026260800187,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SCALP: Semi-Supervised Statistical Shape Modeling from Imperfect 3D Photogrammetry via Landmark-Anchored Spectral Warp},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R575EOXQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00187}
}
read the original abstract

Correspondence-based statistical shape modeling (SSM) is vital for population-level morphometric analysis, but conventional pipelines assume clean, fully registered surfaces. Real-world clinical photogrammetry scans are often noisy, partial, and cluttered, hindering the adoption of radiation-free surface imaging as a safe alternative to computed tomography (CT) for infant craniosynostosis. We present SCALP (Semi-supervised Correspondence via lAndmark Localization and sPectral warping), a two-stage framework that constructs consistent shape models directly from raw, imperfect surface scans. First, a semi-supervised Point Transformer leverages a small expert-annotated dataset alongside a large unlabeled cohort to accurately localize craniofacial landmarks with minimal annotation overhead. Second, these landmarks anchor a Laplace--Beltrami spectral deformation of an anatomical template, generating dense correspondences while naturally isolating the cranium from peripheral scanning clutter without manual preprocessing. Experiments on infant photogrammetry scans demonstrate that SCALP consistently outperforms state-of-the-art unsupervised point-cloud approaches, offering a clinically practical pathway toward objective, radiation-free head shape analysis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00187 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the Scalp framework. Stage I (Landmark Localization): A raw photogrammetric mesh Sn is downsampled via FPS to point cloud Pn. A Point Transformer (PTv2) backbone extracts features for parallel Heatmap and Offset heads, localized into landmarks Ln via attention-guided Hough voting. Training uses a semi-supervised Mean Teacher paradigm with a feature consis￾tency loss on unlabeled data. Stage II (LBO Spect… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Quantitative evaluation against baselines. Top: Statistical Shape Model (SSM) quality metrics (Com￾pactness, Generalization, and Speci￾ficity) plotted across principal modes. Bottom: Box plots showing test co￾hort distributions for geometric errors: LLE, P2S, and Warp S2S metrics. SCALP Point2SSM++ Point2SSM++ SCALP Best LLE Median LLE Worst LLE Missing Surface (a) (b) Best LLE Median LLE Worst LLE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. First three principal modes of shape variation ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Data efficiency ablation curves on the test cohort for vary￾ing quantities of labeled training subjects (N ∈ {10, 25, 50}) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abdel-Alim, T.: Craniumpy: A tool for the alignment and basic analysis of 3d meshes, focused on craniofacial applications.https://github.com/T-AbdelAlim/ CraniumPy(2021).https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5634153

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.5634153 2021

  2. [2]

    Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 152(4), 675e–688e (2023)

    Abdel-Alim, T., Kurniawan, M., Mathijssen, I., Dremmen, M., Dirven, C., Niessen, W., Roshchupkin, G., van Veelen, M.L.: Sagittal craniosynostosis: comparing sur- gical techniques using 3d photogrammetry. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 152(4), 675e–688e (2023)

    2023

  3. [3]

    Journal of Craniofacial Surgery34(6), 1629–1634 (2023)

    Abdel-Alim, T., Tio, P., Kurniawan, M., Mathijssen, I., Dirven, C., Niessen, W., Roshchupkin, G., van Veelen, M.L.: Reliability and agreement of automated head measurements from 3-dimensional photogrammetry in young children. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery34(6), 1629–1634 (2023)

    2023

  4. [4]

    In: International conference on machine learning

    Achlioptas, P., Diamanti, O., Mitliagkas, I., Guibas, L.: Learning representations and generative models for 3d point clouds. In: International conference on machine learning. pp. 40–49. PMLR (2018)

    2018

  5. [5]

    In: International Conference on Learning Representations

    Adams, J., Elhabian, S.: Point2ssm: learning morphological variations of anatomies from point clouds. In: International Conference on Learning Representations. vol. 2024, pp. 13493–13513 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    Medical Image Analysis p

    Adams, J., Karanam, M.S.T., Elhabian, S.: Point2ssm++: Self-supervised learning of anatomical shape models from point clouds. Medical Image Analysis p. 104073 (2026)

    2026

  7. [7]

    In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition (CVPR) (2007)

    Amberg, B., Romdhani, S., Vetter, T.: Optimal step nonrigid ICP algorithms for surface registration. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition (CVPR) (2007)

    2007

  8. [8]

    Aubry, M., Schlickewei, U., Cremers, D.: The wave kernel signature: A quantum mechanicalapproachtoshapeanalysis.In:IEEEInternationalConferenceonCom- puter Vision Workshops (ICCVW) (2011)

    2011

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Journal of Craniofacial Surgery31(3), 697–701 (2020)

    Bhalodia, R., Dvoracek, L.A., Ayyash, A.M., Kavan, L., Whitaker, R., Goldstein, J.A.: Quantifying the severity of metopic craniosynostosis: a pilot study application of machine learning in craniofacial surgery. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery31(3), 697–701 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    In: International Workshop on Shape in Medical Imaging

    Bhalodia, R., Elhabian, S.Y., Kavan, L., Whitaker, R.T.: Deepssm: a deep learn- ing framework for statistical shape modeling from raw images. In: International Workshop on Shape in Medical Imaging. pp. 244–257. Springer (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    The Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal60(8), 971–979 (2023)

    Bruce, M.K., Tao, W., Beiriger, J., Christensen, C., Pfaff, M.J., Whitaker, R., Goldstein, J.A.: 3d photography to quantify the severity of metopic craniosynos- tosis. The Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal60(8), 971–979 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    In: Statistical shape and deformation analysis, pp

    Cates, J., Elhabian, S., Whitaker, R.: Shapeworks: particle-based shape correspon- dence and visualization software. In: Statistical shape and deformation analysis, pp. 257–298. Elsevier (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

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

    Chen, N., Liu, L., Cui, Z., Chen, R., Ceylan, D., Tu, C., Wang, W.: Unsupervised learning of intrinsic structural representation points. In: IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 9121–9130 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    In: International Workshop on Graphs in Biomedical Image Analysis

    Cruz-Guerrero, I.A., Elkhill, C., Liu, J., Nguyen, P., French, B., Porras, A.R.: Mesh registration via geometric feature homogenization and offset cross-attention: Appli- cation to 3d photogrammetry. In: International Workshop on Graphs in Biomedical Image Analysis. pp. 96–105...

    2024

  7. [15]

    In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) Workshops

    Dai, H., Pears, N., Smith, W.: Non-rigid 3d shape registration using an adap- tive template. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) Workshops. pp. 0–0 (2018) SCALP 17

    2018

  8. [16]

    IEEE transactions on medical imaging21(5), 525–537 (2002)

    Davies, R.H., Twining, C.J., Cootes, T.F., Waterton, J.C., Taylor, C.J.: A mini- mum description length approach to statistical shape modeling. IEEE transactions on medical imaging21(5), 525–537 (2002)

    2002

  9. [17]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Donati, N., Sharma, A., Ovsjanikov, M.: Deep geometric functional maps: Ro- bust feature learning for shape correspondence. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 8592–8601 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Computer methods and programs in biomedicine240, 107689 (2023)

    Elkhill,C.,Liu,J.,Linguraru,M.G.,LeBeau,S.,Khechoyan,D.,French,B.,Porras, A.R.: Geometric learning and statistical modeling for surgical outcomes evaluation in craniosynostosis using 3d photogrammetry. Computer methods and programs in biomedicine240, 107689 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Computational Visual Media7(2), 187–199 (2021)

    Guo, M.H., Cai, J.X., Liu, Z.N., Mu, T.J., Martin, R.R., Hu, S.M.: PCT: Point cloud transformer. Computational Visual Media7(2), 187–199 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence43(7), 2269–2286 (2021)

    Hirose, O.: A bayesian formulation of coherent point drift. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence43(7), 2269–2286 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

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

    Iyer, K., Elhabian, S.Y.: Mesh2ssm: From surface meshes to statistical shape mod- els of anatomy. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. pp. 615–625. Springer (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.07145 (2025)

    Iyer, K., Karanam, M.S.T., Elhabian, S.: Mesh2ssm++: A probabilistic framework for unsupervised learning of statistical shape model of anatomies from surface meshes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.07145 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Scientific reports10(1), 15346 (2020)

    de Jong, G., Bijlsma, E., Meulstee, J., Wennen, M., van Lindert, E., Maal, T., Aquarius, R., Delye, H.: Combining deep learning with 3d stereophotogrammetry for craniosynostosis diagnosis. Scientific reports10(1), 15346 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology11, 1089113 (2023)

    Khan, N., Peterson, A.C., Aubert, B., Morris, A., Atkins, P.R., Lenz, A.L., Ander- son, A.E., Elhabian, S.Y.: Statistical multi-level shape models for scalable model- ing of multi-organ anatomies. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology11, 1089113 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    In: Medical Image Com- puting and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI)

    Kubík, T., Guibault, F., Španěl, M., Lombaert, H.: ToothForge: Automatic dental shape generation using synchronized spectral embeddings. In: Medical Image Com- puting and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI). LNCS, Springer (2025), arXiv:2506.02702

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    In: 2021 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV)

    Lang, I., Ginzburg, D., Avidan, S., Raviv, D.: Dpc: Unsupervised deep point cor- respondence via cross and self construction. In: 2021 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV). pp. 1442–1451. IEEE (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    under- stands

    Lévy, B.: Laplace-beltrami eigenfunctions towards an algorithm that" under- stands" geometry. In: IEEE International Conference on Shape Modeling and Ap- plications 2006 (SMI’06). pp. 13–13. IEEE (2006)

    2006

  20. [28]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision

    Litany, O., Remez, T., Rodola, E., Bronstein, A., Bronstein, M.: Deep functional maps: Structured prediction for dense shape correspondence. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision. pp. 5659–5667 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Masci, J., Boscaini, D., Bronstein, M.M., Vandergheynst, P.: Geodesic convolu- tionalneuralnetworksonriemannianmanifolds.In:IEEEInternationalConference on Computer Vision Workshops (ICCVW) (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (2015)

    Maturana,D.,Scherer,S.:VoxNet:A3Dconvolutionalneuralnetworkforreal-time object recognition. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    Medical Image Analysis18(4), 635–646 (2014) 18 N

    Mendoza, C.S., Safdar, N., Okada, K., Myers, E., Rogers, G.F., Linguraru, M.G.: Personalized assessment of craniosynostosis via statistical shape modeling. Medical Image Analysis18(4), 635–646 (2014) 18 N. Khan et al

    2014

  24. [32]

    International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery 46(7), 819–826 (2017)

    Meulstee, J., Verhamme, L., Borstlap, W., Van der Heijden, F., De Jong, G., Xi, T., Bergé, S., Delye, H., Maal, T.: A new method for three-dimensional evaluation of the cranial shape and the automatic identification of craniosynostosis using 3d stereophotogrammetry. Internatio...

    2017

  25. [33]

    IEEE Trans- actions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence32(12), 2262–2275 (2010)

    Myronenko, A., Song, X.: Point set registration: Coherent point drift. IEEE Trans- actions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence32(12), 2262–2275 (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    ACM Transactions on Graphics31(4) (2012)

    Ovsjanikov, M., Ben-Chen, M., Solomon, J., Butscher, A., Guibas, L.: Functional maps: A flexible representation of maps between shapes. ACM Transactions on Graphics31(4) (2012)

    2012

  27. [35]

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

    Qi, C.R., Litany, O., He, K., Guibas, L.J.: Deep hough voting for 3d object detec- tion in point clouds. In: proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 9277–9286 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2017)

    Qi, C.R., Su, H., Mo, K., Guibas, L.J.: PointNet: Deep learning on point sets for 3D classification and segmentation. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) (2017)

    Qi, C.R., Yi, L., Su, H., Guibas, L.J.: PointNet++: Deep hierarchical feature learn- ing on point sets in a metric space. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    Computer-Aided Design38(4), 342–366 (2006)

    Reuter, M., Wolter, F.E., Peinecke, N.: Laplace–Beltrami spectra as ‘Shape-DNA’ of surfaces and solids. Computer-Aided Design38(4), 342–366 (2006)

    2006

  31. [39]

    In: Computer graphics forum

    Rodolà, E., Cosmo, L., Bronstein, M.M., Torsello, A., Cremers, D.: Partial func- tional correspondence. In: Computer graphics forum. vol. 36, pp. 222–236. Wiley Online Library (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery45(3), 387–394 (2017)

    Rodriguez-Florez, N., Göktekin, Ö.K., Bruse, J.L., Borghi, A., Angullia, F., Knoops, P.G., Tenhagen, M., O’Hara, J.L., Koudstaal, M.J., Schievano, S., et al.: Quantifying the effect of corrective surgery for trigonocephaly: a non-invasive, non- ionizing method using three-dime...

    2017

  33. [41]

    Diagnostics12(7), 1516 (2022)

    Schaufelberger, M., Kühle, R., Wachter, A., Weichel, F., Hagen, N., Ringwald, F., Eisenmann, U., Hoffmann, J., Engel, M., Freudlsperger, C., et al.: A radiation- free classification pipeline for craniosynostosis using statistical shape modeling. Diagnostics12(7), 1516 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Insight Journal pp

    Styner, M., Oguz, I., Xu, S., Brechbühler, C., Pantazis, D., Levitt, J.J., Shenton, M.E., Gerig, G.: Framework for the statistical shape analysis of brain structures using SPHARM-PDM. Insight Journal pp. 242–250 (2006)

    2006

  35. [43]

    In: IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (2015)

    Su, H., Maji, S., Kalogerakis, E., Learned-Miller, E.: Multi-view convolutional neural networks for 3D shape recognition. In: IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (2015)

    2015

  36. [44]

    Computer Graphics Forum28(5), 1383–1392 (2009)

    Sun, J., Ovsjanikov, M., Guibas, L.: A concise and provably informative multi-scale signature based on heat diffusion. Computer Graphics Forum28(5), 1383–1392 (2009)

    2009

  37. [45]

    The Cleft Palate Craniofa- cial Journal p

    Tao, W., Somorin, T.J., Kueper, J., Dixon, A., Kass, N., Khan, N., Iyer, K., Wag- oner, J., Rogers, A., Whitaker, R., et al.: Quantifying sagittal craniosynostosis severity: a machine learning approach with craniorate. The Cleft Palate Craniofa- cial Journal p. 105566562513473...

    2025

  38. [46]

    Advances in neural information processing systems30(2017) SCALP 19

    Tarvainen, A., Valpola, H.: Mean teachers are better role models: Weight-averaged consistency targets improve semi-supervised deep learning results. Advances in neural information processing systems30(2017) SCALP 19

    2017

  39. [47]

    ACM Transactions on Graphics38(5) (2019)

    Wang, Y., Sun, Y., Liu, Z., Sarma, S.E., Bronstein, M.M., Solomon, J.M.: Dynamic graph CNN for learning on point clouds. ACM Transactions on Graphics38(5) (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems35, 33330–33342 (2022)

    Wu, X., Lao, Y., Jiang, L., Liu, X., Zhao, H.: Point transformer v2: Grouped vector attention and partition-based pooling. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems35, 33330–33342 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Pediatric Neurology99, 7–15 (2019)

    Yilmaz, E., Mihci, E., Nur, B., Alper, Ö.M., Taçoy, Ş.: Recent advances in cran- iosynostosis. Pediatric Neurology99, 7–15 (2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    Advances in neural information processing systems35, 27061–27074 (2022)

    Zhang, R., Guo, Z., Gao, P., Fang, R., Zhao, B., Wang, D., Qiao, Y., Li, H.: Point- m2ae: multi-scale masked autoencoders for hierarchical point cloud pre-training. Advances in neural information processing systems35, 27061–27074 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    In: Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

    Zhao, H., Jiang, L., Jia, J., Torr, P.H., Koltun, V.: Point transformer. In: Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 16259– 16268 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    In: IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    Zohaib, M., Del Bue, A.: SC3K: Self-supervised and coherent 3D keypoints es- timation from rotated, noisy, and decimated point cloud data. In: IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). pp. 22509–22519 (2023) 20 N. Khan et al. Supplementary Material A Ablatio...

    2023

Pith tools

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