ArticlePloS one2018
Procrustes-based geometric morphometrics on MRI images: An example of inter-operator bias in 3D landmarks and its impact on big datasets.
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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computed tomography as a solution to skeletal collection limitations: exploring cranial variation in the South African population.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Craniofacial morphology and its association with masseter and medial pterygoid muscle thickness among adults from a population-based sample.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Ancestry estimation: Methodological evolution and forensic implications.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2026Review
- The quest for the best: manual, atlas- and spatial prior-based delineation of locus coeruleus.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2026Article
- "Visiting scientist effect"? Exploring the impact of time-lags in the digitization of 2D landmark data.Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007) · 2025Article
- Article
- Evaluation of the corpus callosum shape in patients with obstructive sleep apnea.Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung · 2022Article
- Can morphotaxa be assessed with photographs? Estimating the accuracy of two-dimensional cranial geometric morphometrics for the study of threatened populations of African monkeys.Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007) · 2022Article
- Automated landmarking via multiple templates.PloS one · 2022Article
- Testing inter-observer error under a collaborative research framework for studying lithic shape variability.Archaeological and anthropological sciences · 2022Article
- SHIP-MR and Radiology: 12 Years of Whole-Body Magnetic Resonance Imaging in a Single Center.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Bayesian Estimation of Geometric Morphometric Landmarks for Simultaneous Localization of Multiple Anatomies in Cardiac CT Images.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Optimizing digitalization effort in morphometrics.Biology methods & protocols · 2020Article
- Obtaining new resolutions in carnivore tooth pit morphological analyses: A methodological update for digital taphonomy.PloS one · 2020Article
- Landmark-based homologous multi-point warping approach to 3D facial recognition using multiple datasets.PeerJ. Computer science · 2020Article
- Measurement error in μCT-based three-dimensional geometric morphometrics introduced by surface generation and landmark data acquisition.Journal of anatomy · 2019Article
- Does craniofacial morphology affect third molars impaction? Results from a population-based study in northeastern Germany.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.