Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42501145›Full record

ArticleNeuroinformatics2026

Optimizing Photogrammetry Parameters for 3D Reconstruction of Fresh Brain Specimens.

Carlos A Rueda-Pérez, María-Camila Valencia-Loaiza, Paula Vega-Cordoba, Juliana Tobón, Dylan S Anaya, Andres Gonzalez-Leyton, Juan F Mazo, Jesús D Tarazona, Santiago Ruiz, Juan G Martinez and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroinformatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Carlos A Rueda-PérezGrupo de Neurociencias de Antioquia, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7111-7247
María-Camila Valencia-LoaizaFacultad de Medicina, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4858-3669
Paula Vega-CordobaFacultad de Medicina, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-3552-4268
Juliana TobónFacultad de Medicina, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-7493-6030
Dylan S AnayaFacultad de Medicina, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-2471-5229
Andres Gonzalez-LeytonFacultad de Medicina, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-9022-5990
Juan F MazoFacultad de Medicina, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-0905-5177
Jesús D TarazonaFacultad de Medicina, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-4676-8605
Santiago RuizGrupo de Neurociencias de Antioquia, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4469-8258
Juan G MartinezFacultad de Medicina, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-9820-4509
Andrés Echeverri-GarciaFacultad de Medicina, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-3191-4774
Catherine J Gomez-MorenoFacultad de Medicina, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia.
Brian Vicaño-MetauteGrupo de Neurociencias de Antioquia, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-4612-5288
Johana Gómez-RamirezGrupo de Neurociencias de Antioquia, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia.
Andres Villegas-LanauGrupo de Neurociencias de Antioquia, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia. andres.villegas@gna.org.co.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1971-4364

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Photogrammetry has become an essential tool in medical and research fields for generating high-fidelity 3D models from 2D images. However, optimizing the imaging and processing parameters remains a challenge, particularly for fresh brain specimens, where repeated imaging is not feasible. This study systematically evaluates the impact of various Metashape alignment settings on 3D reconstruction outcomes, analyzing 12,600 configuration combinations and 63,000 alignments. Our results suggest that the optimal imaging setup consists of four photo sets: two captured at anatomical position (level with the brain and 30 cm above it at a 30° camera tilt) and two identical sets with the basal side facing upwards. The brain should be rotated 3° between shots, generating 120 images per set. Initial processing should be performed without masks using medium-precision alignment in Metashape. If alignment fails, we recommend generating one mask per image, delineating the brain's borders, and applying masks to key points. Notably, higher image density only improves alignment reliability when masking is selected to detected features and may only increase processing time. We also observed variability in alignment results under identical conditions, suggesting an inherent stochastic component in Metashape. Consequently, unsuccessful alignments should be repeated before modifying imaging parameters. To our knowledge, this is the first study to systematically define an optimal imaging and processing parameters for 3D photogrammetry of fresh brains using a turntable. Future research should focus on determining the minimum number of images required to ensure high-quality reconstructions.

Indexed as

BrainImaging, Three-DimensionalPhotogrammetryAnimalsHumansReproducibility of Results3D brain reconstructionMetashapeNeuroimagingPhotogrammetry

Identifiers

PMID42501145
PMCPMC13401559

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.