ArticleJournal of anatomy2022
Comparability of skeletal fibulae surfaces generated by different source scanning (dual-energy CT scan vs. high resolution laser scanning) and 3D geometric morphometric validation.
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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Statistical Analysis of Digital 3D Models of a Fossil Tetrapod Skull from µCT and Optical Scanning.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A new distal fibular fragment of Homo floresiensis and the first quantitative comparative analysis of proximal and distal fibular morphology in this species.Journal of anatomy · 2025Article
- The Virtual Database of the Documented Human Osteological Collection (DHOC) of the Certosa Cemetery of Bologna (Italy, 19th-20th Century).American journal of biological anthropology · 2025Article
- Endocranial development in non-avian dinosaurs reveals an ontogenetic brain trajectory distinct from extant archosaurs.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Morphological and evolutionary insights into the keystone element of the human foot's medial longitudinal arch.Communications biology · 2023Article
- An Open-Source Photogrammetry Workflow for Reconstructing 3D Models.Integrative organismal biology (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Comparability of skeletal fibulae surfaces generated by different source scanning (dual-energy CT scan vs. high resolution laser scanning) and 3D geometric morphometric validation.Journal of anatomy · 2022Article
- Article
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 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
This work aims to test accuracy and comparability of 3D models of human skeletal fibulae generated by clinical CT and laser scanner virtual acquisitions. Mesh topology, segmentation and smoothing protocols were tested to assess variation among meshes generated with different scanning methods and procedures, and to evaluate meshes-interchangeability in 3D geometric morphometric analysis. A sample of 13 left human fibulae were scanned separately with Revolution Discovery CT dual energy (0.625 mm resolution) and ARTEC Space Spider 3D structured light laser scanner (0.1 mm resolution). Different segmentation methods, including half-maximum height (HMH) and MIA-clustering protocols, were compared to their high-resolution standard generated with laser-scanner by calculating topological surface deviations. Different smoothing algorithms were also evaluated, such as Laplacian and Taubin smoothing. A total of 142 semilandmarks were used to capture the shape of both proximal and distal fibular epiphyses. After Generalized Procrustes superimposition, the Procrustes coordinates of the proximal and distal fibular epiphyses were used separately to assess variation due to scanning methods and the operator error. Smoothing algorithms at low iteration do not provide significant variation among reconstructions, but segmentation protocol may influence final mesh quality (0.09-0.24 mm). Mean deviation among CT-generated meshes that were segmented with MIA-clustering protocol, and laser scanner-generated ones, is optimal (0.42 mm, ranging 0.35-0.56 mm). Principal component analysis reveals that homologous samples scanned with the two methods cluster together for both the proximal and distal fibular epiphyses. Similarly, Procrustes ANOVA reveals no shape differences between scanning methods and replicates, and only 1.38-1.43% of shape variation is due to scanning device. Topological similarities support the comparability of CT- and laser scanner-generated meshes and validate its simultaneous use in shape analysis with potential clinical relevance. We precautionarily suggest that dedicated trials should be performed in each study when merging different data sources prior to analyses.
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.