You're pledging to donate if the project hits its minimum goal and gets approved. If not, your funds will be returned.
$50,000 left to reach the funding goal.
AURA is millimetric level med-tech software. In an internal 10-subject evaluation, Aura achieved 0.29 mm median error and 1.8 mm p95 (For example: 3dMD's median error is 0.44 mm). Technical feasibility is established. What remains is independent accuracy and repeatability validation against professional 3D reference scans. I need more patients/subjects or larger ground truth dataset for independent clinical validation.
Why This Matters
Professional 3D imaging systems can cost tens of thousands, putting them out of reach for many smaller clinics. If AURA validates at this level, metric 3D imaging could come from ordinary phone photos instead of expensive hardware. I am raising 20,000-50,000 dollars to validate AURA on a substantially larger independent data set and determine whether it can reach 3dMD/VECTRA class performance using ordinary phone photos
With 20,000 dollars:
Access 40 or 50 subjects licensed head-scan data
Agree on the test protocol with an independent reviewer before running it. report scale-error, region-error, refusal rate, p95 and publish the results regardless of the outcome.
Establish agreements with universities and clinics
Technical staff costs
Equipment costs
Access to ground truth data
University/Institutional fee
Biometric data handling
Research assistant
Independent analysis
Reference scanning fees (3dMD, VECTRA, Artec etc.)
With 50,000 dollars:
Access 100 or 120 subjects licensed head-scan data and measure in addition to above p99, 3dMD/Vectra-class accuracy
This funding is requested exclusively for independent scientific validation; not commercial development, sales or marketing.
Check for more technical details here: https://github.com/hilberspace-dev/portfolio/tree/main/projects/04-aura-photoreal-3d-clinic-platform
Serhat
16 days agoA small update on the validation side.
I've been in touch with a professor at the University of Birmingham who has experience with 3dMD facial imaging. He suggested that a new prospective study would be the better approach and mentioned the possibility of involving a student.
Nothing has been formally agreed yet, but it's an encouraging step. The next task is to work out a practical study protocol using paired phone photos and professional 3D scans.
I'll share more as things progress.
Adeviye
17 days agoI was looking through the GitHub case study and saw that Aura uses multi-view landmarks, depth and a statistical shape prior. Is the face mostly reconstructed from the photos, or is an ML model filling in parts of it? And what happens when the photos just don’t contain enough information for a region?
Serhat
17 days ago@adeviye38 It’s a mix. ML is used on the landmark and face-model side of the pipeline, but Aura isn’t just asking a model to generate a plausible 3D face. The reconstruction is constrained by what the different photos actually agree on — things like multi-view geometry, depth, facial contours and metric scale.
The prior helps where the image evidence is weaker, but I don’t want geometry coming from a model to be presented as if it was directly measured. Aura keeps track of that distinction. If a reconstruction doesn’t pass the geometry and evidence checks, it can be rejected instead of just being shown anyway.
I also deliberately don’t treat generative completion of unseen parts of the face as a measurement. If the system can’t really observe a region, I’d rather have it say that than invent something that just looks convincing.
In our current internal 10-subject benchmark, the reconstruction pipeline achieved 0.29 mm median error against 3D reference scans. The next step is independent validation on a much larger dataset.
So the goal isn’t just to make a realistic-looking 3D face. It’s to make one that can tell you what came from the photos, what came from the model, and when it shouldn’t claim to know something.
Caroline Ellison
17 days agoHi Serhat — we’ve found that several accounts voting on your AURA project appear to be controlled by you or created on your behalf, so we’ve banned those accounts. Manifund relies on comments reflecting independent views from real people, and using additional accounts to boost a project or downvote other projects isn’t allowed. Your project can stay up for now, but any further sockpuppet activity will result in your account and project being removed.
Caroline Ellison
17 days ago@atilgandev Thanks for addressing the issue! Noting that it has now been resolved.
FATMA ATILGAN
20 days agoI hope you manage to raise the funding you need. I also think this could have real clinical value, because access to systems like 3dMD and VECTRA is still very limited. Even where I live, there is only one such system available.
sibel yılmaz
20 days ago
I’m really impressed. If you can secure the funding and get this right, it could be nothing short of revolutionary. Systems like 3dMD and VECTRA are extremely expensive, and we’re talking about software that could potentially replace them.
Serhat
19 days ago@sibelzeynepumay Thank you very much. The key now is proving the accuracy independently.