ArticleScientific reports2021
Anthropometric accuracy of three-dimensional average faces compared to conventional facial measurements.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. 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.
- Smartphone-generated 3D facial images: reliable for routine assessment of the oronasal region of patients with cleft or mere convenience? A validation study.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- A study to determine the three-dimensional (3D) facial shape characteristics for a successful FFP3 mask fit.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Assessment of the reproducibility and accuracy of the VisiaGMS Interdisciplinary plastic and reconstructive surgery DGPW · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate and compare the accuracy of average faces constructed by different methods. Original three-dimensional facial images of 26 adults in Chinese ethnicity were imported into Di3DView and MorphAnalyser for image processing. Six average faces (Ave_D15, Ave_D24, Ave_MG15, Ave_MG24, Ave_MO15, Ave_MO24) were constructed using "surface-based registration" method with different number of landmarks and template meshes. Topographic analysis was performed, and the accuracy of six average faces was assessed by linear and angular parameters in correspondence with arithmetic means calculated from individual original images. Among the six average faces constructed by the two systems, Ave_MG15 had the highest accuracy in comparison with the conventional method, while Ave_D15 had the least accuracy. Other average faces were comparable regarding the number of discrepant parameters with clinical significance. However, marginal and non-registered areas were the most inaccurate regions using Di3DView. For MorphAnalyser, the type of template mesh had an effect on the accuracy of the final 3D average face, but additional landmarks did not improve the accuracy. This study highlights the importance of validating software packages and determining the degree of accuracy, as well as the variables which may affect the result.
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.