ArticleBMC developmental biology2014
Surface landmark quantification of embryonic mouse craniofacial morphogenesis.
Article in BMC developmental biology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Palatal segment contributions to midfacial anterior-posterior growth.Journal of anatomy · 2025Article
- Quantifying the relationship between cell proliferation and morphology during development of the face.Development (Cambridge, England) · 2025Article
- Palatal segment contributions to midfacial anterior-posterior growth.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Large deformation diffeomorphic mapping of 3D shape variation reveals two distinct mandible and head capsule morphs inEcology and evolution · 2024Article
- Automated landmarking via multiple templates.PloS one · 2022Article
- SlicerMorph: An open and extensible platform to retrieve, visualize and analyze 3D morphology.Methods in ecology and evolution · 2021Article
- A landmark-free morphometrics pipeline for high-resolution phenotyping: application to a mouse model of Down syndrome.Development (Cambridge, England) · 2021Article
- A Registration and Deep Learning Approach to Automated Landmark Detection for Geometric Morphometrics.Evolutionary biology · 2020Article
- Aberrant cell segregation in the craniofacial primordium and the emergence of facial dysmorphology in craniofrontonasal syndrome.PLoS genetics · 2020Article
- Nonlinear gene expression-phenotype relationships contribute to variation and clefting in the A/WySn mouse.Developmental dynamics : an official publication of the American Association of Anatomists · 2019Article
- The effect of automated landmark identification on morphometric analyses.Journal of anatomy · 2019Article
- Developmental nonlinearity drives phenotypic robustness.Nature communications · 2017Article
- Quantifying three-dimensional morphology and RNA from individual embryos.Developmental dynamics : an official publication of the American Association of Anatomists · 2017Article
- Rapid automated landmarking for morphometric analysis of three-dimensional facial scans.Journal of anatomy · 2017Article
- Morphometrics, 3D Imaging, and Craniofacial Development.Current topics in developmental biology · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMorphometric quantification of subtle craniofacial variation in studies of experimentally modified embryonic mice has proved valuable in determining the effects of developmental perturbations on craniofacial morphogenesis. The direct comparison of landmark coordinate data from embryos of many different mouse strains and mouse models can advance our understanding of the bases for craniofacial variation. We propose a standard set of craniofacial surface landmarks, for use with embryonic day (E) 10.5-12.5 mice, to serve as the foundation for this type of data compilation and analysis. We quantify the intra- and inter-observer landmark placement variation associated with each landmark and determine how the results of a simple ontogenetic analysis might be influenced by selection of landmark set.
resultsIntraobserver landmark placement error for experienced landmarkers generally remains below 0.1 mm, with some landmarks exhibiting higher values at E11.5 and E12.5. Interobserver error tends to increase with embryonic age and those landmarks defined on wide inflections of curves or facial processes exhibit the highest error. Landmarks with highest intra- or inter-observer are identified and we determine that their removal from the dataset does not significantly change the vectors of craniofacial shape change associated with an ontogenetic regression.
conclusionsOur quantification of landmark placement error demonstrates that it is preferable for a single observer to identify all landmark coordinates within a single study and that significant training and experience are necessary before a landmarker can produce data for use in larger meta-analyses. However, we are confident that this standard landmark set, once landmarks with higher error are removed, can serve as a foundation for a comparative dataset of facial morphogenesis across various mouse populations to help identify the developmental bases for phenotypic variation in the craniofacial complex.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.