Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 9 minor 35 references

CORTET: Robust generation of simulation-ready cortical meshes

T0 review · 4 major / 9 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · 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 fully automated pipeline, CORTET, can convert individual fetal cortical surfaces into simulation-ready tetrahedral meshes whose worst element is certified good enough for numerical folding simulation, with no manual

desk verdict Solid engineering contribution with honest limitations; the 'solver-ready' claim outruns the evidence on deep sulci. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.12157 v2 pith:X6GO4Z4W submitted 2026-07-13 math-ph math.MP

Davood Shahsavari , Irina Grigorescu , Jiaxin Xiao , Nashira Baena , Aakash Saboo , Saga N.B. Masui , Yourong Guo , Vanessa Kyriakopoulou
show 4 more authors
Alena Uus Martin J. Bishop Katherine R. Long Emma C. Robinson
This is my paper · ORCID
classification math-phmath.MP
keywords tetrahedralmeshgenerationcorticalfoldingqualityworst-elementcriterionmorphoelasticgrowthfiniteelementsimulationfetalbrainMRIautomatedpipeline
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that a single automated pipeline can convert an individual fetal cortical surface into a tetrahedral volume mesh whose worst element is good enough to run an explicit folding simulation, with no manual repair. Evidence comes from a cohort of 194 fetal brains: across about 200 million tetrahedra, no element exceeds the chosen quality threshold, and no subject's worst element exceeds 0.561 on the paper's volume-based quality score. The central argument is that mean mesh quality is irrelevant to whether a simulation runs; only the worst element matters, because one degenerate tetrahedron can invert the deformation gradient and halt the solver. The paper isolates the pipeline's contribution by ablating its stages and shows that a mesh taken straight from the pipeline sustains a stable morphoelastic folding simulation of a real fetal subject.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the q_max quality certificate: a per-element volume-based score (q=0 for an equilateral tetrahedron, q=1 for a degenerate one) used both to identify the worst element and to drive an iterative cleaning pass. The pipeline's design is to optimize globally first (Delaunay refinement with Lloyd and other repositioning passes, then global vertex smoothing) and then attack the tail locally with three passes of progressively tightened worst-element thresholds. This staged global-then-local strategy is what removes the degenerate tail without creating new poor elements. The solver-readiness target is q_max < 0.6, a conservative margin below the roughly 0.9 inversion regime

What would settle it

Run the pipeline at default resolution on a deeply folded late-gestation subject, then run the folding simulation on that mesh; if the solver halts with a negative element Jacobian or an inverted element, the guarantee fails. Alternatively, compute an independent quality measure on all 194 cohort meshes and show that at least one mesh has an element below the stability threshold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that worst-element quality can become a pipeline-guaranteed property rather than a post-hoc repair step. CORTET combines global vertex smoothing with iterated worst-element cleaning so that, on 194 subjects spanning the main folding period, the maximum per-element volume-based quality score (0 = equilateral, 1 = degenerate/flat) is always below 0.6, with the cohort worst at 0.561. The ablation shows that Delaunay refinement alone leaves a median of 888 elements above threshold per mesh, global smoothing reduces this to 191, and only the final cleaning stage removes the entire tail, leaving zero elements above threshold in any subject. The paper thereby establishes that a

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that a worst-element score below 0.6 on its chosen volume metric predicts that no element will invert or stall an explicit folding solver for every subject in the cohort, including deeply folded late-gestation brains that are hardest to mesh.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, cohort-scale mechanical simulation of folding becomes feasible: every subject in a large fetal dataset can be meshed automatically and fed to an explicit solver, enabling population studies of folding mechanics.
  • The pipeline's quality holds at resolutions from 0.4 to 0.8 mm cell size, so resolution acts as a free density control that can be refined for accuracy or coarsened for speed without risking solver breakdown.
  • Because the core meshing stages are solver-agnostic, the same pipeline can export to multiple finite-element formats, not just the growth solver used for testing.
  • The documented silent-failure pitfalls (vertex re-indexing, boundary-face reconstruction, node ordering, sign conventions) mean other groups can avoid corrupted mechanics in their own solver-bound pipelines.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The single validation simulation runs on a smooth early-gestation subject; the paper does not demonstrate that deeply folded late-gestation meshes, where narrow sulci are the binding constraint, actually sustain a folding run. Testing the worst-case subjects would close that gap.
  • The quality certificate and the repair step use the same volume-based metric, so an independent quality measure, such as the minimum Jacobian determinant or a radius-ratio score, would strengthen the assurance that q_max < 0.6 translates to solver stability.
  • If the approach transfers, the same global-then-local worst-element strategy could be applied to other soft-tissue meshing problems where explicit solvers are used, such as cardiac or musculoskeletal mechanics, whenever a single bad element can stop a run.
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 / 9 minor

Summary. The paper presents CORTET, a fully automated six-stage pipeline for converting a fetal cortical surface mesh into a tetrahedral volume mesh certified as 'solver-ready' for explicit morphoelastic folding simulations. The pipeline chains CGAL Delaunay refinement, Gmsh smoothing, and meshtool worst-element cleaning, with additional format/fidelity stages. The central claim is that across 194 fetal subjects (21–38 weeks GA), the worst-element quality q_max measured by meshtool's 'tet qmetric volume' remains below the chosen solver-ready threshold q<0.6 in every mesh (2×10^8 tetrahedra), whereas the same surfaces meshed out-of-the-box by TetGen fail universally. The authors also report an ablation of pipeline stages, a resolution study, and one folding simulation of a smooth GA-22 subject that runs stably on a pipeline mesh.

Significance. If the central claim holds, CORTET would be a valuable practical contribution: it removes a genuine bottleneck in patient-specific cortical folding simulation by automating a stage that required manual intervention in roughly a third of cases in the prior pipeline (Alenyà et al. [1]). The paper's strengths include a large cohort evaluation (194 subjects, 2×10^8 elements), a fair and useful baseline comparison against TetGen on identical inputs, and the inclusion of an independent solver check (one completed folding simulation). The claim that the pipeline is fully automated and parameter-light is credible and falsifiable. The main limitation is that the solver-readiness certificate rests on a scalar quality metric whose link to explicit-solver stability is only weakly validated, particularly for the deeply folded, late-gestation brains where meshing is hardest.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.6 and §4.1] The headline claim 'not one element exceeds q=0.6' (Sec. 4.1) largely restates the Stage-4 stopping rule: Stage 4 (meshtool cleaning) is defined as 'three passes of progressively tightened quality thresholds' (Sec. 3.2), and the metric by which cleaning identifies poor elements is the same meshtool q metric used for evaluation (Sec. 3.6). With an aggressive enough cleaning pass, the output would trivially have zero elements above threshold. The paper does not report how many elements were removed or altered, or how the three threshold values were chosen, or whether the Stage-4 thresholds are different from 0.6. As reported, the evaluation is not an independent test of the pipeline's ability to meet the target; the external anchors (TetGen comparison, Tallinen row, one folding simulation) carry the independent-evidence burden. Please report the Stage-4 threshold schedule, the number/propo
  2. [§2, §3.6, §4.4] The paper itself states in Sec. 2 that two properties decide solver usability: worst-element quality and edge uniformity (Δt_crit ≤ ℓ_min/c). Yet the evaluation pipeline (Sec. 3.6) and all of Sec. 4 report only the meshtool q metric. No statistics are given for minimum edge length, edge-length ratios, shortest-edge distributions, dihedral angles, or condition numbers. Thus the second stated requirement is never validated. This matters because the one direct solver check (Sec. 4.4) is a single smooth GA-22 cortex, and the unquantified 'q≈0.9 inversion regime' (Sec. 3.6) gives no evidence about whether q<0.6 suffices for deep, narrow sulci at late GA. The paper's own Limitations section concedes that deep narrow sulci are the binding constraint and that q_max<0.6 is 'a strong default rather than an absolute guarantee.' To support 'solver-ready, no manual repair' for the hardest subjects, e
  3. [§4.1] The TetGen comparison does not fully isolate the pipeline's contribution from that of the input geometry. TetGen is run 'out-of-the-box on the same surfaces' and fails universally (Table 1), which is a useful baseline, but no attempt is made to give TetGen comparable optimization passes (e.g., TetGen's own -q quality option or post-hoc smoothing). If TetGen under default settings is not representative of what a general-purpose mesher can achieve with standard quality flags, the comparison overstates the gap. The claim 'general-purpose tetrahedralisers fail to generate meshes that run mechanical simulations' (Sec. 1) would be better supported by reporting TetGen with typical quality options enabled, or by explicitly stating that out-of-the-box default settings are the intended standard of comparison.
  4. [§4.4 and §3.2] The single folding simulation is described only qualitatively ('no element inversion', 'worst-element quality below target throughout', 'realistic wavelength'). There is no quantitative information about the simulation: number of time steps, final growth magnitude, strain/stress range, minimum Jacobian during the run, whether the mesh's edge-uniformity remained adequate after deformation. Since this is the only direct evidence that q_max<0.6 certifies solver-readiness, the paper should include at least the simulation parameters and a quantitative stability trace (e.g., min det(F) over time). Without these, the claim that the pipeline's meshes 'sustain a numerically stable folding simulation' is underdocumented.
minor comments (9)
  1. [§3.6] The q metric is described ambiguously: 'q_e = 0 is a regular (equilateral) tetrahedron and q_e → 1 a degenerate, flat element'. This is the opposite sign convention of most quality measures where 1 is ideal. Please clarify explicitly that this is a 'badness' score, and define the formula or cite the meshtool documentation precisely. Also note that the term q_max (worst element) could be misread as a maximum quality in the standard convention.
  2. [§4.1] Table 1 reports TetGen q_max=0.996 [0.974–1.000]; the text says TetGen reaches q_max=1.000. Please reconcile the exact maximum and range.
  3. [§3.6 and §4.1] The text refers to '1.7×10^5 solver-breaking elements' falling to zero, while Table 1 reports the median count of elements >0.6 for CGAL-only as 888 per mesh. 1.7×10^5 is presumably the cohort total; please state this explicitly to avoid confusion.
  4. [§3.2 and Fig. 1] The three progressive meshtool cleaning thresholds in Stage 4 are never specified. They should be reported (at least as a default parameter set) for reproducibility, especially since the code is public.
  5. [§3.5] The GA-dependent smoothing-iteration rule is described only verbally ('set the number of smoothing iterations per subject by gestational age') with no formula or table. Since this is one of the few free parameters in the pipeline, please give the explicit rule.
  6. [§4.2] Fig. 3 left panel uses a log scale for tetrahedron count but the text does not mention that; and the right panel's y-axis range (approx 0.46–0.56) makes the q_max trend look flatter or more variable than it is. Consider adding error bars or a regression line to support the claim that quality is independent of GA.
  7. [§4.3 and Table 2] Table 2's q_max values are not monotonic in h (e.g., GA-21.86 subject: h=0.4 gives q_max=0.550, h=0.6 gives 0.462). The text claims 'quality stays flat across the range', which is fair, but the non-monotonicity should be acknowledged as noise.
  8. [§1 and §5] The related-work comparison to Alenyà et al. [1] is qualitative. A quantitative comparison (e.g., their reported manual re-meshing rate, mesh statistics, or q_max on comparable subjects) would strengthen the novelty claim. At minimum, state whether the same surfaces or same cohort were used.
  9. [§3.5] The paper says surfaces are smoothed to define the stress-free reference configuration, but Sec. 4.4 says the folding simulation starts from a 'smooth GA-22 cortex'. It would help to state explicitly whether the simulation uses the smoothed surface or the original anatomy, and how much smoothing was applied for that subject.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The cohort-wide 'zero elements above q=0.6' result is enforced by the Stage-4 cleaning metric, so the primary quality validation is by construction; only the single GA-22 simulation is independent.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 3.6 (Evaluation framework and metrics); Sec. 4.1 (Table 1)]
    "We therefore adopt meshtool’s tet q metric volume, the measure by which the Stage-4 cleaning identifies and iteratively improves the poorest elements... Only after meshtool cleaning does the tail vanish entirely: across all 2.0×10^8 tetrahedra in the cohort, not one element exceeds q=0.6."

    The solver-ready target q_max<0.6 is defined in terms of the same meshtool tet q metric that Stage-4 cleaning is designed to enforce. The headline result that no element exceeds q=0.6 is therefore the stopping rule of the cleaning step restated as a validation outcome. The paper explicitly chooses the metric to be 'consistent with the criterion by which the pipeline itself repairs meshes,' so the evaluation and the optimization are the same quantity. This makes the cohort-wide claim a property of the algorithm's construction, not an independent test.

full rationale

The central cohort-wide claim — 'Across all 2.0×10^8 tetrahedra in the cohort, not one element exceeds q=0.6' (Sec. 4.1) — is not an independent prediction: the pipeline's Stage-4 cleaning uses meshtool's tet q metric with progressively tightened thresholds, and Sec. 3.6 explicitly adopts that same metric as the solver-ready criterion. The zero-exceedance result is thus a restatement of the cleaning objective. Independent content exists: the TetGen comparison and the Tallinen published mesh provide external baselines, and the single GA-22 morphoelastic folding simulation (Sec. 4.4) is a genuine, if narrow, test of solver-readiness. The paper's own Limitations section concedes that q_max<0.6 is 'a strong default rather than an absolute guarantee' and that late-gestation deep narrow sulci are the binding constraint, meaning the one smooth-subject simulation cannot certify the hardest cases. On balance, one central validation metric reduces by construction, giving partial circularity (score 6), but the pipeline is not wholly circular because of these external anchors.

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

The pipeline's central result depends on assumptions about input topology, the meaning of the q metric, and the geometric safety of aggressive cleaning. The main free choices are h, q<0.6, and the unspecified GA-smoothing and meshtool thresholds. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Cell size h (default) = 0.6 mm
    Sets element density in CGAL Delaunay refinement (Sec. 3.2); the resolution study (Sec. 4.3) shows qmax is stable for h=0.4-0.8 mm, so it is not tuned to the quality target.
  • Solver-ready quality threshold q < 0.6 = q_max < 0.6
    Chosen as a 'conservative margin' below an asserted q≈0.9 inversion regime (Sec. 3.6); the value is a design choice, not derived or independently calibrated.
  • GA-dependent surface smoothing iterations = not specified numerically
    Pre-processing sets smoothing per gestational age subject to area-loss and displacement limits (Sec. 3.5); the mapping is not stated, so it is a hidden knob in the pipeline.
  • meshtool cleaning thresholds (three progressive passes) = not specified
    Stage 4 applies 'progressively tightened quality thresholds' (Sec. 3.2); exact values are omitted, so the stopping rule is under-specified.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Input cortical surfaces are closed, orientable genus-0 manifolds.
    CGAL Delaunay refinement requires consistent normals and an identified interior (Sec. 3.2); surfaces are resampled from an ico-6 template via MSM (Sec. 3.5), which is assumed to preserve topology per subject.
  • ad hoc to paper The q metric (meshtool tet qmetric volume) is a reliable proxy for explicit-solver stability, with inversion near q≈0.9.
    Stated in Sec. 3.6 as 'observed in practice' without data or citation; this underlies the qmax<0.6 solver-ready target.
  • domain assumption Mesh cleaning (Gmsh smoothing and meshtool passes) does not introduce self-intersections or clinically meaningful geometric distortion.
    No quantitative surface-fidelity error is reported after Stages 3-4; fidelity is only checked visually (Sec. 4.2, Fig. 4) and via optional Stage 6 snapping.
  • standard math A single degenerate element halts an explicit solver and the shortest edge bounds the stable time step (Δt ≤ l_min/c).
    Standard finite-element/CFL reasoning invoked in Sec. 2 to justify the worst-element focus.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CORTET: Robust generation of simulation-ready cortical meshes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X6GO4Z4W

@misc{pith2026260712157,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CORTET: Robust generation of simulation-ready cortical meshes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X6GO4Z4W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.12157}
}
read the original abstract

Every human brain folds differently, and such natural variation confounds the search for imaging biomarkers of neurodevelopmental disorders. Physics-based simulation can help determine the causal mechanisms that underpin this variability. Yet every simulation must be initiated from a solid tetrahedral mesh of the brain's interior, and it is the worst element in that mesh, not the average, that decides whether the simulation runs at all. Building that mesh from fetal MRI currently requires labour-intensive manual intervention. We therefore present CORTET (CORtical TETrahedral meshing): a fully automated pipeline that converts a triangulated cortical surface into a solver-ready tetrahedral mesh whose worst-element quality meets a strict stability target with no manual repair. By benchmarking against a general-purpose tetrahedral mesher on the same input surfaces, we isolate the pipeline's contribution from that of the input geometry, and we validate quality across a cohort of nearly 200 fetal subjects spanning the folding period. A mesh taken straight from the pipeline sustains a numerically stable morphoelastic folding simulation of a real fetal subject.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.12157 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The six-stage pipeline from a GIfTI cortical surface to a finite-element [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Per-element quality pooled across the cohort. The dotted line marks the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cohort mesh quality across gestational age (194 subjects, left hemisphere, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Developmental mesh series: gestational weeks 21.86, 28.00 and 33.86 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A pipeline mesh sustains a stable folding simulation. From a smooth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Brain Multiphysics3, 100,045 (2022)

    Aleny` a, M., Wang, X., Lef` evre, J., Auzias, G., Fouquet, B., Eixarch, E., Rousseau, F., Camara, O.: Computational pipeline for the generation and validation of CORTET: Automated Cortical Meshing 11 patient-specific mechanical models of brain development. Brain Multiphysics3, 100,045 (2022). DOI 10.1016/j.brain.2022.100045

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Physical Biology10(1), 016,005 (2013)

    Bayly, P.V., Okamoto, R.J., Xu, G., Shi, Y., Taber, L.A.: A cortical folding model incorporating stress-dependent growth explains gyral wavelengths and stress pat- terns in the developing brain. Physical Biology10(1), 016,005 (2013). DOI 10.1088/1478-3975/10/1/016005

    work page doi:10.1088/1478-3975/10/1/016005 2013

  3. [3]

    Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials29, 568–581 (2014)

    Bayly, P.V., Taber, L.A., Kroenke, C.D.: Mechanical forces in cerebral cortical folding: a review of measurements and models. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials29, 568–581 (2014). DOI 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.02.018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.02.018 2014

  4. [4]

    In: International Workshop on Biomedical Image Registration, pp

    Besenczi, R., Guo, Y., Robinson, E.C.: High performance groupwise cortical surface registration with multimodal surface matching. In: International Workshop on Biomedical Image Registration, pp. 321–332. Springer (2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    NeuroImage179, 11–29 (2018)

    Bozek, J., Makropoulos, A., Schuh, A., Fitzgibbon, S., Wright, R., Glasser, M.F., Coalson, T.S., O’Muircheartaigh, J., Hutter, J., Price, A.N., et al.: Construction of a neonatal cortical surface atlas using multimodal surface matching in the developing human connectome project. NeuroImage179, 11–29 (2018). DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.06.018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.06.018 2018

  6. [6]

    https://nipy.org/nibabel/ (2024)

    Brett, M., Markiewicz, C.J., et al.: NiBabel. https://nipy.org/nibabel/ (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    Scientific Reports4, 5644 (2014)

    Budday, S., Raybaud, C., Kuhl, E.: A mechanical model predicts morphological abnormalities in the developing human brain. Scientific Reports4, 5644 (2014). DOI 10.1038/srep05644

    work page doi:10.1038/srep05644 2014

  8. [8]

    Journal of Biomechanics139, 110,851 (2022)

    Darayi, M., Hoffman, M.E., Sayut, J., Wang, S., Demirci, N., Consolini, J., Holland, M.A.: Computational models of cortical folding: A review of common approaches. Journal of Biomechanics139, 110,851 (2022). DOI 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2021.110851

    arXiv 2022

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    https://trimesh.org/ (2024)

    Dawson-Haggerty, M.: trimesh. https://trimesh.org/ (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    In: IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging, pp

    Fang, Q., Boas, D.A.: Tetrahedral mesh generation from volumetric binary and grayscale images. In: IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging, pp. 1142–1145 (2009). DOI 10.1109/ISBI.2009.5193259

    2009

  3. [11]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115(12), 3156–3161 (2018)

    Garcia, K.E., Robinson, E.C., Alexopoulos, D., Dierker, D.L., Glasser, M.F., Coal- son, T.S., Ortinau, C.M., Rueckert, D., Taber, L.A., Van Essen, D.C., Rogers, C.E., Smyser, C.D., Bayly, P.V.: Dynamic patterns of cortical expansion during folding of the preterm human brain. P...

    2018 doi

  4. [12]

    International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering79(11), 1309–1331 (2009)

    Geuzaine, C., Remacle, J.F.: Gmsh: A 3-D finite element mesh generator with built-in pre- and post-processing facilities. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering79(11), 1309–1331 (2009). DOI 10.1002/nme.2579

    2009 doi

  5. [13]

    In: Medical Imaging with Deep Learning (2026)

    Grigorescu, I., Xiao, J., Guo, Y., Kyriakopoulou, V., Uus, A., Karolis, V., Liang, K., Suliman, M.A., Ma, Q., Rueckert, D., et al.: Sud-cotan: Sulcal depth-guided anatomically consistent fetal cortical surface reconstruction. In: Medical Imaging with Deep Learning (2026)

    2026

  6. [14]

    ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software 41(4), 23:1–23:24 (2015)

    Jamin, C., Alliez, P., Yvinec, M., Boissonnat, J.D.: CGALmesh: A generic frame- work for Delaunay mesh generation. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software 41(4), 23:1–23:24 (2015). DOI 10.1145/2699463

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    Cerebral Cortex24(8), 2141–2150 (2014)

    Kyriakopoulou, V., Vatansever, D., Elkommos, S., Dawson, S., McGuinness, A., Allsop, J., Molnar, Z., Hajnal, J., Rutherford, M.: Cortical overgrowth in fetuses with isolated ventriculomegaly. Cerebral Cortex24(8), 2141–2150 (2014). DOI 10.1093/cercor/bht062

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    NeuroImage55(1), 153–164 (2011)

    Lederman, C., Joshi, A., Dinov, I., Vese, L., Toga, A., Van Horn, J.D.: The gen- eration of tetrahedral mesh models for neuroanatomical MRI. NeuroImage55(1), 153–164 (2011). DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.013 12 D. Shahsavari et al

    2011 doi

  9. [17]

    BIT Numerical Mathematics34(2), 268–287 (1994)

    Liu, A., Joe, B.: Relationship between tetrahedron shape measures. BIT Numerical Mathematics34(2), 268–287 (1994). DOI 10.1007/BF01955874

    1994 doi

  10. [18]

    IEEE Transactions on Information Theory28(2), 129–137 (1982)

    Lloyd, S.P.: Least squares quantization in PCM. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory28(2), 129–137 (1982). DOI 10.1109/TIT.1982.1056489

    1982

  11. [19]

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

    Ma, Q., Li, L., Kyriakopoulou, V., Hajnal, J.V., Robinson, E.C., Kainz, B., Rueck- ert, D.: Conditional temporal attention networks for neonatal cortical surface reconstruction. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI)...

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Frontiers in Neu- roinformatics5, 4 (2011)

    Marcus, D.S., Harwell, J., Olsen, T., Hodge, M., Glasser, M.F., Prior, F., Jenk- inson, M., Laumann, T., Curtiss, S.W., Van Essen, D.C.: Informatics and data mining tools and strategies for the human connectome project. Frontiers in Neu- roinformatics5, 4 (2011). DOI 10.3389/f...

    2011 arXiv

  13. [21]

    https://bitbucket.org/aneic/meshtool

    Neic, A., Campos, F.O., Prassl, A.J., Plank, G.: meshtool: A mesh manipulation utility. https://bitbucket.org/aneic/meshtool. Accessed 2026

    2026

  14. [22]

    Proceedings of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM) (2019)

    Price, A.N., Cordero-Grande, L., Hughes, E., et al.: The developing human connec- tome project (dhcp): fetal acquisition protocol. Proceedings of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM) (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    NeuroImage167, 453–465 (2018)

    Robinson, E.C., Garcia, K., Glasser, M.F., Chen, Z., Coalson, T.S., Makropou- los, A., Bozek, J., Wright, R., Schuh, A., Webster, M., et al.: Multimodal surface matching with higher-order smoothness constraints. NeuroImage167, 453–465 (2018). DOI 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.10.037

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    NeuroImage100, 414–426 (2014)

    Robinson, E.C., Jbabdi, S., Glasser, M.F., Andersson, J., Burgess, G.C., Harms, M.P., Smith, S.M., Van Essen, D.C., Jenkinson, M.: Msm: a new flexible framework for multimodal surface matching. NeuroImage100, 414–426 (2014). DOI 10.1016/ j.neuroimage.2014.05.069

    2014

  17. [25]

    Journal of Biomechanics27(4), 455–467 (1994)

    Rodriguez, E.K., Hoger, A., McCulloch, A.D.: Stress-dependent finite growth in soft elastic tissues. Journal of Biomechanics27(4), 455–467 (1994). DOI 10.1016/ 0021-9290(94)90021-3

    1994

  18. [26]

    Brain Stimulation12(6), 1664 (2019)

    Saturnino, G.B., Puonti, O., Nielsen, J.D., et al.: SimNIBS 2.1: A comprehensive pipeline for individualized electric field modelling for transcranial brain stimula- tion. Brain Stimulation12(6), 1664 (2019). DOI 10.1016/j.brs.2019.07.015

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    https://github.com/nschloe/meshio (2024)

    Schl¨ omer, N.: meshio: I/O for mesh files. https://github.com/nschloe/meshio (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    https: //github.com/meshpro/pygalmesh (2024)

    Schl¨ omer, N.: pygalmesh: Python interface for CGAL’s 3D mesh generation. https: //github.com/meshpro/pygalmesh (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Computing and Visualization in Science1(1), 41–52 (1997)

    Sch¨ oberl, J.: NETGEN an advancing front 2D/3D-mesh generator based on ab- stract rules. Computing and Visualization in Science1(1), 41–52 (1997). DOI 10.1007/s007910050004

    1997 doi

  22. [30]

    Brain 143(10), 2874–2894 (2020)

    Severino, M., Geraldo, A.F., Utz, N., Tortora, D., Pogledic, I., Klonowski, W., Triulzi, F., Arrigoni, F., Mankad, K., Leventer, R.J., et al.: Definitions and clas- sification of malformations of cortical development: practical guidelines. Brain 143(10), 2874–2894 (2020). DOI ...

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    Preprint, Department of EECS, University of California, Berkeley (2002)

    Shewchuk, J.R.: What is a good linear finite element? Interpolation, condition- ing, anisotropy, and quality measures. Preprint, Department of EECS, University of California, Berkeley (2002). https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/∼jrs/papers/elem. pdf

    2002

  24. [32]

    ACM Trans- actions on Mathematical Software41(2), 11:1–11:36 (2015)

    Si, H.: TetGen, a Delaunay-based quality tetrahedral mesh generator. ACM Trans- actions on Mathematical Software41(2), 11:1–11:36 (2015). DOI 10.1145/2629697 CORTET: Automated Cortical Meshing 13

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(35), 12,667–12,672 (2014)

    Tallinen, T., Chung, J.Y., Biggins, J.S., Mahadevan, L.: Gyrification from con- strained cortical expansion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(35), 12,667–12,672 (2014). DOI 10.1073/pnas.1406015111

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    Nature Physics12(6), 588–593 (2016)

    Tallinen, T., Chung, J.Y., Rousseau, F., Girard, N., Lef` evre, J., Mahadevan, L.: On the growth and form of cortical convolutions. Nature Physics12(6), 588–593 (2016). DOI 10.1038/nphys3632

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    Scientific Reports11, 7686 (2021)

    Wang, X., Lef` evre, J., Bohi, A., Harrach, M.A., Dinomais, M., Rousseau, F.: The influence of biophysical parameters in a biomechanical model of cortical folding patterns. Scientific Reports11, 7686 (2021). DOI 10.1038/s41598-021-87124-y

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.