MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409581084 · doi:10.1109/tmi.2025.3562443

Vertex Correspondence and Self-Intersection Reduction in Cortical Surface Reconstruction

2025· article· en· W4409581084 on OpenAlexaff
Anne-Marie Rickmann, Fabian Bongratz, Christian Wachinger

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal and Macular Surgery
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsSurface reconstructionIntersection (aeronautics)Reduction (mathematics)Vertex (graph theory)Surface (topology)Iterative reconstructionMathematicsComputer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligenceCombinatoricsGeometryGraphEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mesh-based cortical surface reconstruction is essential for neuroimaging, enabling precise measurements of brain morphology such as cortical thickness. Establishing vertex correspondence between individual cortical meshes and group templates allows vertex-level comparisons, but traditional methods require time-consuming post-processing steps to achieve vertex correspondence. While deep learning has improved accuracy in cortical surface reconstruction, optimizing vertex correspondence has not been the focus of prior work. We introduce Vox2Cortex with Correspondence (V2CC), an extension of Vox2Cortex, which replaces the commonly used Chamfer loss with L1 loss on registered surfaces. This approach improves inter- and intra-subject correspondence, which makes it suitable for direct group comparisons and atlas-based parcellation. Additionally, we analyze mesh self-intersections, categorizing them into minor (neighboring faces) and major (non-neighboring faces) types.To address major self-intersections, which are not effectively handled by standard regularization losses, we propose a novel Self-Proximity loss, designed to adjust non-neighboring vertices within a defined proximity threshold. Comprehensive evaluations demonstrate that recent deep learning methods inadequately address vertex correspondence, often causing inaccuracies in parcellation. In contrast, our method achieves accurate correspondence and reduces self-intersections to below 1% for both pial and white matter surfaces.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Medical ImagingSame topicRetinal and Macular SurgeryFrench-language works237,207