ColonAdapter: Geometry Estimation Through Foundation Model Adaptation for Colonoscopy
Authors: Zhiyi Jiang, Yifu Wang, Xuelian Cheng, Zongyuan Ge
Organizations: School of Computer Science and Engineering, Southeast University, China · Vetex Lab, Shanghai, China · Southeast University - Monash University Joint Graduate School, Suzhou 215123, China · Monash Suzhou Research Institute, Monash University, Suzhou 215000, China · Department of Data Science & Artificial Intelligence (DSAI), Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia · Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia
Estimating 3D geometry from monocular colonoscopy images is challenging due to non-Lambertian surfaces, moving light sources, and large textureless regions. While recent 3D geometric foundation models eliminate the need for multi-stage pipelines, their performance deteriorates in clinical scenes. These models are primarily trained on natural scene datasets and struggle with specularity and homogeneous textures typical in colonoscopy, leading to inaccurate geometry estimation. In this paper, we present ColonAdapter, a self-supervised fine-tuning framework that adapts geometric foundation models for colonoscopy geometry estimation. Our method leverages pretrained geometric priors while tailoring them to clinical data. To improve performance in low-texture regions and ensure scale consistency, we introduce a Detail Restoration Module (DRM) and a geometry consistency loss. Furthermore, a confidence-weighted photometric loss enhances training stability in clinical environments. Experiments on both synthetic and real datasets demonstrate that our approach achieves state-of-the-art performance in camera pose estimation, monocular depth prediction, and dense 3D point map reconstruction, without requiring ground-truth intrinsic parameters.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Comparison of depth map estimations on colonoscopy images between a 3D geometric foundation model (DUSt3R [ 4 ] ) and our proposed method. The top row shows how extensive textureless regions cause the model to misinterpret distant areas as close (and vice versa). The middle row highlights how shadows caused by moving light sources and complex anatomical structures lead DUSt3R to erroneously label them as distant. In contrast, the bottom row illustrates that our method accurately reconstructs scenes containing textureless surfaces, dynamic shadows, and non-Lambertian regions, where DUSt3R fails.
Fig. 2: The training pipeline of our proposed framework, consisting of an adapted foundation module (a), an affiliation module (b), and loss calculation (c). The adapted foundation module takes two input images and generates corresponding point maps along with their confidence maps. The affiliation module, used only during training, provides image brightness calibration, optical flow, and affiliated pose information. With the generated components from these two modules, we reconstruct image and calculate the losses. During evaluation, we rely solely on the adapted foundation module to generate point maps, which are then used to derive camera information, including poses and intrinsic parameters.
Fig. 3: Architecture of the proposed Detail Restoration Module. The ResNet-18 extracts multi-level features from the input images, which are then fused with ViT features through fusion adapters. The fused features are injected only into the first five layers of the ViT decoder to provide low-level information.
Method
G.I.
ATE ↓
RPE Trans ↓
RPE Rot ↓
AF-SfMLearner
✓
0.0067
0.1479
0.8518
Lite-Mono
✓
0.0169
0.1438
0.5962
Monodepth2
✓
0.0103
0.1459
0.5679
DARES
✓
0.0109
0.1473
0.9073
EndoDAC
×
0.0146
0.1411
0.5787
Ours
×
0.0062
0.0570
0.5573
TABLE I: Quantitative camera pose estimation on various sequences of SimCol3D, evaluated using 10 random frames in accordance with [ 31 ] . ”G.I.” indicates the use of ground-truth intrinsic parameters.
Method
G.I.
ATEs1↓
ATEs2↓
ATEs3↓
AF-SfMLearner
✓
0.2704
0.2710
0.1591
Lite-Mono
✓
0.3064
0.3114
0.1620
Monodepth2
✓
0.2951
0.3143
0.1702
DARES
✓
0.2678
0.2620
0.1594
EndoDAC
×
0.2711
0.2937
0.1596
Ours
×
0.2654
0.2660
0.1580
TABLE II: Quantitative ego-motion comparison on the SimCol3D dataset. The ATE is averaged over all 5-frame snippets following [ 5 ] .
Method
G.I.
SimCol3D
CSD
Abs Rel ↓
Sq Rel ↓
RMSE ↓
RMSE log ↓
δ↑
Abs Rel ↓
Sq Rel ↓
RMSE ↓
RMSE log ↓
δ↑
AF-SfMLearner
✓
0.077
0.474
4.124
0.111
0.951
0.071
0.208
2.565
0.110
0.950
Lite-Mono
✓
0.092
0.708
3.976
0.123
0.937
0.080
0.207
2.428
0.117
0.943
Monodepth2
✓
0.083
0.554
3.861
0.112
0.950
0.100
0.668
3.208
0.129
0.915
DARES
✓
0.077
0.439
4.458
0.121
0.944
0.116
0.616
3.339
0.157
0.881
ManyDepth
✓
0.084
0.526
4.291
0.118
0.944
0.072
0.207
2.347
0.104
0.959
TABLE III: Monocular depth estimation on SimCol3D and CSD datasets. Best results are in bold , second-best are underlined .
Fig. 4: Qualitative depth estimation results on the EndoMapper dataset. The top row highlights our method’s ability, enhanced by the integration of DRM, to capture fine structural details (highlighted with red box) that are missed by other approaches. The bottom row shows that even in the presence of unseen artifacts such as bubble, our method still predicts artifact-free geometry.
Method
G.I.
Abs Rel ↓
Sq Rel ↓
RMSE ↓
RMSE log ↓
δ↑
AF-SfMLearner
✓
0.152
1.153
6.321
0.190
0.805
Lite-Mono
✓
0.146
1.406
7.210
0.191
0.812
Monodepth2
✓
0.143
1.248
7.241
0.188
0.820
DARES
✓
0.134
1.096
6.593
0.175
0.817
ManyDepth
✓
0.190
1.960
8.641
0.260
0.716
EndoDAC
×
0.153
1.380
7.280
0.185
0.812
TABLE IV: Monocular depth estimation on C3VD dataset. Best results are in bold , second-best are underlined .
Fig. 5: Qualitative comparison of our predicted 3D point maps and the baseline DUSt3R on real colonoscopy images. In the top row, our method successfully recovers a 3D scene from two images containing textureless and non-Lambertian surfaces, while DUSt3R produces a distorted plane. In the bottom row, our method reconstructs the scene geometry, whereas DUSt3R predicts most of the region as a plane.
Method
G.I.
Acc. ↓
Comp. ↓
SqRel ↓
RMSE log ↓
AF-SfMLearner
✓
1.779
1.284
0.032
0.116
EndoDAC
×
19.610
8.566
2.463
0.368
DUSt3R
×
41.535
27.028
1.109
0.486
Ours
×
1.742
1.182
0.028
0.111
TABLE V: Point map estimation on SimCol3D
Method
Abs Rel ↓
Sq Rel ↓
RMSE ↓
RMSE log ↓
σ↑
Fusion(1)
0.075
0.528
4.666
0.114
0.944
Fusion(2)
0.072
0.459
4.318
0.107
0.952
Fusion(3)
0.062
0.340
3.732
0.094
0.969
TABLE VI: Ablation study results on fusion strategy
Department of Biomedical Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore · Department of Radiotherapy, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China