Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34747020›Full record

ArticleJournal of anatomy2022

Comparing and combining sliding semilandmarks and weighted spherical harmonics for shape analysis.

Christine M Harper, Deanna M Goldstein, Adam D Sylvester

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of anatomy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Whole-bone shape of hominoid manual proximal phalanges.Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007) · 2026
    Article
  3. Protocol of Geometric Morphometrics for Teratogenicity Testing.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Article
  4. Beak morphometry and morphogenesis across avian radiations.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Using Optimal Transport to Improve Spherical Harmonic Quantification of Complex Biological Shapes.Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine · 2022
    Article
  7. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christine M HarperDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8575-3228
Deanna M GoldsteinCenter for Functional Anatomy and Evolution, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Adam D SylvesterCenter for Functional Anatomy and Evolution, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quantifying morphological variation is critical for conducting anatomical research. Three-dimensional geometric morphometric (3D GM) landmark analyses quantify shape using homologous Cartesian coordinates (landmarks). Setting up a high-density landmark set and placing it on all specimens, however, can be a time-consuming task. Weighted spherical harmonics (SPHARM) provides an alternative method for analyzing the shape of such objects. Here we compare sliding semilandmark and SPHARM analyses of the calcaneus of Gorilla gorilla gorilla (n = 20), Pan troglodytes troglodytes (n = 20), and Homo sapiens (n = 20) to determine whether the SPHARM and sliding semilandmark analyses capture comparable levels of shape variation. We also compare both the sliding semilandmark and SPHARM analyses to a novel combination of the two methods, here termed SPHARM-sliding. In SPHARM-sliding, the vertices of the surface models produced from the SPHARM analysis (that are the same in number and relative location) are used as the starting landmark positions for a sliding semilandmark analysis. Calcaneal shape variation quantified by all three analyses was summarized using separate principal components analyses. Results were compared using the root mean square (RMS) and maximum distance between surface models of species averages scaled (up) to centroid size created from each analysis. The average RMS was 0.23 mm between sliding semilandmark and SPHARM average surface models, 0.19 mm between SPHARM and SPHARM sliding average surface models, and 0.22 mm between sliding semilandmark and SPHARM sliding average surface models. Although results indicate that all three analyses are comparable methods for 3D shape analysis, there are advantages and disadvantages to each. While the SPHARM analysis is less time-intensive, it is unable to capture the same level of detail around the sharp edges of articular facets on average surface models as the sliding semilandmark analysis. The SPHARM analysis also does not allow for individual articular facets to be analyzed in isolation. SPHARM-sliding, however, captures the same level of detail as the sliding semilandmark analysis, and (as in the sliding semilandmark analysis) allows for the evaluation of individual portions of bone. SPHARM is a comparable method to a 3D GM analysis for small, irregularly shaped bones, such as the calcaneus, and SPHARM-sliding allows for an expedited set up process for a sliding semilandmark analysis.

Indexed as

CalcaneusGorilla gorillaAnimalsHumansPrincipal Component Analysissliding semilandmarksthree-dimensional geometric morphometricsweighted spherical harmonics

Identifiers

PMID34747020
PMCPMC8930823
OpenAlexW3213334889

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.