Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Fetal cardiac structure localization requires features that follow the size and orientation of individual anatomical targets. We present Geometry-guided Regional Interaction and Transformation for Oriented Bounding Box Detection (GRIT-OBB), an oriented method that uses corrected proposal geometry to guide feature extraction and bounding-box refinement. Starting from horizontal proposals, a supervised correction stage estimates oriented bounding boxes, which define the sampling regions for rotated position-sensitive alignment. Then, a geometry-guided relation residual combines regional features using Gaussian bounding box representations and Wasserstein distances, followed by classification and refinement. Finally, rotated intersection-over-union losses directly supervise both proposal correction and localization. We evaluated GRIT-OBB against six methods on three datasets: FOCUS, OCD, and AU-OPG, comprising 300, 120, and 901 images, respectively. On the FOCUS dataset, GRIT-OBB achieved a mean AP50 of 47.74%, AP75 of 8.53%, and mAP50:95 of 16.81%, corresponding to improvements of 4.74%, 1.8%, and 2.01% over the strongest baseline, respectively. On the OCD dataset, GRIT-OBB achieved a mean AP50 of 73.14%, AP75 of 18.97%, and mAP50:95 of 30.77%, corresponding to improvements of 12.40%, 13.54%, and 11.28% over the strongest baseline. On the AU-OPG dataset, GRIT-OBB achieved a mean AP50 of 82.65%, AP75 of 59.66%, and mAP50:95 of 50.66%, corresponding to an improvement of 2.41%, 7.27%, and 3.88% compared with the strongest baseline. In an ablation study, removing supervised geometric correction reduced performance on the FOCUS dataset from 47.74% to 43.44% for AP50, while removing both IoU losses decreased performance from 8.53% to 6.59% for AP75. These results support our hypothesis that geometry-guided feature alignment and direct supervision at successive localization stages can improve object detection for fetal cardiac structures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yuan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: