ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024
Validation of 3 Computer-Aided Facial Phenotyping Tools (DeepGestalt, GestaltMatcher, and D-Score): Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early identification of Prader-Willi syndrome in newborns using facial phenotype-based machine learning.Pediatric research · 2026Article
- Review
- Utility of Face2Gene's DeepGestalt and D-Score applications in paediatric neurodevelopmental disorders in South Africa.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- The Utility of Face2Gene App for Syndrome Recognition in Indian Children with Dysmorphism.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence, Connected Care, and Enabling Digital Health Technologies in Rare Diseases With a Focus on Lysosomal Storage Disorders: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Workflow analysis and evaluation of a next-generation phenotyping tool: A qualitative study of Face2Gene.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Article
- AI-Based Facial Phenotyping Supports a Shared Molecular Axis inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- An Artificial Intelligence Approach to the Craniofacial Recapitulation of Crisponi/Cold-Induced Sweating Syndrome 1 (CISS1/CISS) from Newborns to Adolescent Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Obstacles to Early Diagnosis of Gaucher Disease.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2025Review
- Broadening theChildren (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile characteristic facial features provide important clues for finding the correct diagnosis in genetic syndromes, valid assessment can be challenging. The next-generation phenotyping algorithm DeepGestalt analyzes patient images and provides syndrome suggestions. GestaltMatcher matches patient images with similar facial features. The new D-Score provides a score for the degree of facial dysmorphism.
objectiveWe aimed to test state-of-the-art facial phenotyping tools by benchmarking GestaltMatcher and D-Score and comparing them to DeepGestalt.
methodsUsing a retrospective sample of 4796 images of patients with 486 different genetic syndromes (London Medical Database, GestaltMatcher Database, and literature images) and 323 inconspicuous control images, we determined the clinical use of D-Score, GestaltMatcher, and DeepGestalt, evaluating sensitivity; specificity; accuracy; the number of supported diagnoses; and potential biases such as age, sex, and ethnicity.
resultsDeepGestalt suggested 340 distinct syndromes and GestaltMatcher suggested 1128 syndromes. The top-30 sensitivity was higher for DeepGestalt (88%, SD 18%) than for GestaltMatcher (76%, SD 26%). DeepGestalt generally assigned lower scores but provided higher scores for patient images than for inconspicuous control images, thus allowing the 2 cohorts to be separated with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.73. GestaltMatcher could not separate the 2 classes (AUROC 0.55). Trained for this purpose, D-Score achieved the highest discriminatory power (AUROC 0.86). D-Score's levels increased with the age of the depicted individuals. Male individuals yielded higher D-scores than female individuals. Ethnicity did not appear to influence D-scores.
conclusionsIf used with caution, algorithms such as D-score could help clinicians with constrained resources or limited experience in syndromology to decide whether a patient needs further genetic evaluation. Algorithms such as DeepGestalt could support diagnosing rather common genetic syndromes with facial abnormalities, whereas algorithms such as GestaltMatcher could suggest rare diagnoses that are unknown to the clinician in patients with a characteristic, dysmorphic face.
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.