ArticleG3 (Bethesda, Md.)2022
Testing the accuracy of 3D automatic landmarking via genome-wide association studies.
Article in G3 (Bethesda, Md.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative analysis of a manual and an automated 3D landmark digitization method of the torso in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- 3D pollination biology using micro-computed tomography and geometric morphometrics inApplications in plant sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Various advances in 3D automatic phenotyping and landmark-based geometric morphometric methods have been made. While it is generally accepted that automatic landmarking compromises the capture of the biological variation, no studies have directly tested the actual impact of such landmarking approaches in analyses requiring a large number of specimens and for which the precision of phenotyping is crucial to extract an actual biological signal adequately. Here, we use a recently developed 3D atlas-based automatic landmarking method to test its accuracy in detecting QTLs associated with craniofacial development of the house mouse skull and lower jaws for a large number of specimens (circa 700) that were previously phenotyped via a semiautomatic landmarking method complemented with manual adjustment. We compare both landmarking methods with univariate and multivariate mapping of the skull and the lower jaws. We find that most significant SNPs and QTLs are not recovered based on the data derived from the automatic landmarking method. Our results thus confirm the notion that information is lost in the automated landmarking procedure although somewhat dependent on the analyzed structure. The automatic method seems to capture certain types of structures slightly better, such as lower jaws whose shape is almost entirely summarized by its outline and could be assimilated as a 2D flat object. By contrast, the more apparent 3D features exhibited by a structure such as the skull are not adequately captured by the automatic method. We conclude that using 3D atlas-based automatic landmarking methods requires careful consideration of the experimental question.
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.