Cited by 55Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesFetal and Pediatric Neurological DisordersArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Learning to map 2D ultrasound images into 3D space with minimal human annotation

Yeung, Pak-Hei, Aliasi, Moska, Papageorghiou, Aris T., Haak, Monique, Xie, Weidi, Namburete, Ana I.L.·2021·Medical Image Analysis

Abstract

In fetal neurosonography, aligning two-dimensional (2D) ultrasound scans to their corresponding plane in the three-dimensional (3D) space remains a challenging task. In this paper, we propose a convolutional neural network that predicts the position of 2D ultrasound fetal brain scans in 3D atlas space. Instead of purely supervised learning that requires heavy annotations for each 2D scan, we train the model by sampling 2D slices from 3D fetal brain volumes, and target the model to predict the inverse of the sampling process, resembling the idea of self-supervised learning. We propose a model that takes a set of images as input, and learns to compare them in pairs. The pairwise comparison is weighted by the attention module based on its contribution to the prediction, which is learnt implicitly during training. The feature representation for each image is thus computed by incorporating the relative position information to all the other images in the set, and is later used for the final prediction. We benchmark our model on 2D slices sampled from 3D fetal brain volumes at 18-22 weeks' gestational age. Using three evaluation metrics, namely, Euclidean distance, plane angles and normalized cross correlation, which account for both the geometric and appearance discrepancy between the ground-truth and prediction, in all these metrics, our model outperforms a baseline model by as much as 23%, when the number of input images increases. We further demonstrate that our model generalizes to (i) real 2D standard transthalamic plane images, achieving comparable performance as human annotations, as well as (ii) video sequences of 2D freehand fetal brain scans.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.media.2021.101998

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 49 · Cited by 55

Authors
Yeung, P.-H., Aliasi, M., Papageorghiou, A. T., Haak, M., Xie, W., & Namburete, A. I. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
Corresponding author
Yeung, Pak-Hei
Venue
Medical Image Analysis
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-05
Volume
70
Pages
101998
ISSN
1361-8415 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3132522774
Cited by
55
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 1
FWCI
3.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Image Analysis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/M013774/1, EP/T028572/1)
  • National Institute for Health Research
  • Royal Academy of Engineering
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Fetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
fetal neurosonography, self-supervised learning, attention mechanism, convolutional neural networks, slice sampling, freehand ultrasound
MeSH terms
Gestational Age, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Ultrasonography, Neural Networks, Computer, Neuroimaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review