Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29787586›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Procrustes-based geometric morphometrics on MRI images: An example of inter-operator bias in 3D landmarks and its impact on big datasets.

Amro Daboul, Tatyana Ivanovska, Robin Bülow, Reiner Biffar, Andrea Cardini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Ancestry estimation: Methodological evolution and forensic implications.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Optimizing digitalization effort in morphometrics.Biology methods & protocols · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
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

5 authors.

Amro DaboulDepartment of Prosthodontics, Gerodontology and Biomaterials, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8998-1025
Tatyana IvanovskaInstitute of Biophysics, Georg-August-University, Göttingen, Germany.
Robin BülowInstitute for Radiology and Neuroradiology, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Reiner BiffarDepartment of Prosthodontics, Gerodontology and Biomaterials, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Andrea CardiniDipartimento di Scienze Chimiche e Geologiche, Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena-Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Using 3D anatomical landmarks from adult human head MRIs, we assessed the magnitude of inter-operator differences in Procrustes-based geometric morphometric analyses. An in depth analysis of both absolute and relative error was performed in a subsample of individuals with replicated digitization by three different operators. The effect of inter-operator differences was also explored in a large sample of more than 900 individuals. Although absolute error was not unusual for MRI measurements, including bone landmarks, shape was particularly affected by differences among operators, with up to more than 30% of sample variation accounted for by this type of error. The magnitude of the bias was such that it dominated the main pattern of bone and total (all landmarks included) shape variation, largely surpassing the effect of sex differences between hundreds of men and women. In contrast, however, we found higher reproducibility in soft-tissue nasal landmarks, despite relatively larger errors in estimates of nasal size. Our study exemplifies the assessment of measurement error using geometric morphometrics on landmarks from MRIs and stresses the importance of relating it to total sample variance within the specific methodological framework being used. In summary, precise landmarks may not necessarily imply negligible errors, especially in shape data; indeed, size and shape may be differentially impacted by measurement error and different types of landmarks may have relatively larger or smaller errors. Importantly, and consistently with other recent studies using geometric morphometrics on digital images (which, however, were not specific to MRI data), this study showed that inter-operator biases can be a major source of error in the analysis of large samples, as those that are becoming increasingly common in the 'era of big data'.

Indexed as

AdultAnatomic LandmarksAnthropometryDatasets as TopicFemaleHeadHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleObserver VariationReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID29787586
PMCPMC5963746

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.