Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33146411›Full record

ArticleJournal of anatomy2021

How does scanner choice and 3D model resolution affect data accuracy?

Katharine L Balolia, Jason S Massey

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of anatomy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The ATFL inferior fascicle, the CFL and the PTFL have a continuous footprint at the medial side of the fibula.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Facial asymmetry tracks genetic diversity amongProceedings. Biological sciences · 2022
    Article
  11. 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

2 authors.

Katharine L BaloliaSchool of Archaeology and Anthropology, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6676-0315
Jason S MasseyDepartment of Integrative Biology and Physiology, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4681-6323

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Researchers using digital methods often collect data from 3D models at different resolutions, obtained using different scanning techniques. Although previous research has sought to understand whether scanning method and model resolution affect data accuracy, no study has systematically evaluated the sources of error associated with scanning method, data acquisition method and model resolution with the aim of providing practical recommendations about the model resolution required to yield sufficiently accurate data for specimens of given sizes. In this study, using data taken from primate specimens of three broad size categories, we test whether 3D models obtained using five different scanners (Breuckmann SmartSCAN, DAVID/HP 3D Pro S3, NextEngine 2020i, Creaform Go!Scan 20 and microCT/clinicalCT) yield accurate measurements. We assess whether caliper measurements can be used alongside measurements collected from 3D surface models, whether scanning resolution affects measurement accuracy, and how scan resolution, estimated using each scanner's proprietary software, compares to model resolution measured in a standardized way. Each scanner produces 3D models that yield accurate measurements for each size category, however, combining caliper data with those taken from digital models can be problematic. Our results indicate that the accuracy of measurements taken from 3D models depends on both object size and model resolution. Based on our findings, we recommend that small specimens should be scanned at <0.3 mm, medium specimens at 0.3-0.7 mm, and large specimens at 0.3-0.5 mm resolutions if data taken from 3D surface models are to be combined with caliper datasets. We further show, for the first time, that discrepancies in estimated final model resolution are frequently observed across software packages. We therefore recommend that researchers ensure that final model resolutions are adequate based on specimen size and are independently verified using a software package other than the scanner's proprietary software. Finally, we consider the implications of the findings that measurements obtained from surface models are variably consistent with those obtained using calipers.

Indexed as

Anatomic LandmarksAnimalsData AccuracyFemaleImaging, Three-DimensionalMalePrimatesTomography Scanners, X-Ray ComputedAccuracyCT scanninglaser scanningresolutionvirtual measurementswhite light scanning

Identifiers

PMID33146411
PMCPMC7855060

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.