Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30805571›Full record

ArticleShape in medical imaging : International Workshop, ShapeMI 2018, held in conjunction with MICCAI 2018, Granada, Spain, September 20, 2018 : proceedings. ShapeMI (Workshop) (2018 : Granada, Spain)2018

On the Evaluation and Validation of Off-the-shelf Statistical Shape Modeling Tools: A Clinical Application.

Anupama Goparaju, Ibolya Csecs, Alan Morris, Evgueni Kholmovski, Nassir Marrouche, Ross Whitaker, Shireen Elhabian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Shape in medical imaging : International Workshop, ShapeMI 2018, held in conjunction with MICCAI 2018, Granada, Spain, September 20, 2018 : proceedings. ShapeMI (Workshop) (2018 : Granada, Spain), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Thinking outside the glenohumeral box: Hierarchical shape variation of the periarticular anatomy of the scapula using statistical shape modeling.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2020
    Article
  16. Combined Estimation of Shape and Pose for Statistical Analysis of Articulating Joints.Shape in Medical Imaging : International Workshop, ShapeMI 2020, Held in Conjunction with MICCAI 2020, Lima, Peru, October 4, 2020, Proceedings · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

7 authors.

Anupama GoparajuScientific Computing and Imaging Institute, University of Utah, SLC, UT, USA anupama.goparaju@utah.edu, whitaker@sci.utah.edu, shireen@sci.utah.edu.
Ibolya CsecsComprehensive Arrhythmia Research and Management Center, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Utah, SLC, UT, USA alan.morris@carma.utah.edu, nassir.marrouche@carma.utah.edu.
Alan MorrisComprehensive Arrhythmia Research and Management Center, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Utah, SLC, UT, USA alan.morris@carma.utah.edu, nassir.marrouche@carma.utah.edu.
Evgueni KholmovskiComprehensive Arrhythmia Research and Management Center, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Utah, SLC, UT, USA alan.morris@carma.utah.edu, nassir.marrouche@carma.utah.edu.
Nassir MarroucheComprehensive Arrhythmia Research and Management Center, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Utah, SLC, UT, USA alan.morris@carma.utah.edu, nassir.marrouche@carma.utah.edu.
Ross WhitakerScientific Computing and Imaging Institute, University of Utah, SLC, UT, USA anupama.goparaju@utah.edu, whitaker@sci.utah.edu, shireen@sci.utah.edu.
Shireen ElhabianScientific Computing and Imaging Institute, University of Utah, SLC, UT, USA anupama.goparaju@utah.edu, whitaker@sci.utah.edu, shireen@sci.utah.edu.

Funding

TRD - VisualizationP41GM103545 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI JURRUS, ELIZABETH · 2012 to 2019
$9.7M
New 3D and 4D Image-Based Clinical Measures of Atrial Structural and Functional Remodeling in Atrial FibrillationR01HL135568 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI CATES, JOSHUA E, ELHABIAN, SHIREEN YOUSSEF · 2017 to 2020
$1.4M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL135568NIGMS NIH HHS P41 GM103545
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Statistical shape modeling (SSM) has proven useful in many areas of biology and medicine as a new generation of morphometric approaches for the quantitative analysis of anatomical shapes. Recently, the increased availability of high-resolution in vivo images of anatomy has led to the development and distribution of open-source computational tools to model anatomical shapes and their variability within populations with unprecedented detail and statistical power. Nonetheless, there is little work on the evaluation and validation of such tools as related to clinical applications that rely on morphometric quantifications for treatment planning. To address this lack of validation, we systematically assess the outcome of widely used off-the-shelf SSM tools, namely ShapeWorks, SPHARM-PDM, and Deformetrica, in the context of designing closure devices for left atrium appendage (LAA) in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients to prevent stroke, where an incomplete LAA closure may be worse than no closure. This study is motivated by the potential role of SSM in the geometric design of closure devices, which could be informed by population-level statistics, and patient-specific device selection, which is driven by anatomical measurements that could be automated by relating patient-level anatomy to population-level morphometrics. Hence, understanding the consequences of different SSM tools for the final analysis is critical for the careful choice of the tool to be deployed in real clinical scenarios. Results demonstrate that estimated measurements from ShapeWorks model are more consistent compared to models from Deformetrica and SPHARM-PDM. Furthermore, ShapeWorks and Deformetrica shape models capture clinically relevant population-level variability compared to SPHARM-PDM models.

Indexed as

Correspondence optimizationEvaluationStatistical shape modelsSurface parameterization

Identifiers

PMID30805571
PMCPMC6385871

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.