ArticleBMJ open2020
Evaluating phone camera and cloud service-based 3D imaging and printing of human bones for anatomical education.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ethics and applications of isotope analysis in archaeology.American journal of biological anthropology · 2025Review
- A workflow for the creation of photorealistic 3D cadaveric models using photogrammetry.Journal of anatomy · 2023Article
- Application of 3D modeling and fusion technology of medical image data in image teaching.BMC medical education · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the feasibility of a phone camera and cloud service-based workflow to image bone specimens and print their three-dimensional (3D) models for anatomical education.
designThe images of four typical human bone specimens, photographed by a phone camera, were aligned and converted into digital images for incorporation into a digital model through the Get3D website and submitted to an online 3D printing platform to obtain the 3D printed models. The fidelity of the 3D digital, printed models relative to the original specimens, was evaluated through anatomical annotations and 3D scanning.
settingThe Morphologic Science Experimental Center, Central South University, China.
participantsSpecimens of four typical bones-the femur, rib, cervical vertebra and skull-were used to evaluate the feasibility of the workflow. OUTCOME MEASURES: The gross fidelity of anatomical features within the digital models and 3D printed models was evaluated first using anatomical annotations in reference to Netter's Atlas of Human Anatomy. The measurements of the deviation were quantised and visualised for analysis in Geomagic Control 2015.
resultsAll the specimens were reconstructed in 3D and printed using this workflow. The overall morphology of the digital and 3D printed models displayed a large extent of similarity to the corresponding specimens from a gross anatomical perspective. A high degree of similarity was also noticed in the quantitative analysis, with distance deviations ≤2 mm present among 99% of the random sampling points that were tested.
conclusionThe photogrammetric digitisation workflow adapted in the present study demonstrates fairly high precision with relatively low cost and fewer equipment requirements. This workflow is expected to be used in morphological/anatomical science education, particularly in institutions and schools with limited funds or in certain field research projects involving the fast acquisition of 3D digital data on human/animal bone specimens or on other remains.
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.