ArticleScientific reports2024
Functional data geometric morphometrics with machine learning for craniodental shape classification in shrews.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Geometric morphometrics approach for classifying children's nutritional status on out of sample data.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This work proposes a functional data analysis approach for morphometrics in classifying three shrew species (S. murinus, C. monticola, and C. malayana) from Peninsular Malaysia. Functional data geometric morphometrics (FDGM) for 2D landmark data is introduced and its performance is compared with classical geometric morphometrics (GM). The FDGM approach converts 2D landmark data into continuous curves, which are then represented as linear combinations of basis functions. The landmark data was obtained from 89 crania of shrew specimens based on three craniodental views (dorsal, jaw, and lateral). Principal component analysis and linear discriminant analysis were applied to both GM and FDGM methods to classify the three shrew species. This study also compared four machine learning approaches (naïve Bayes, support vector machine, random forest, and generalised linear model) using predicted PC scores obtained from both methods (a combination of all three craniodental views and individual views). The analyses favoured FDGM and the dorsal view was the best view for distinguishing the three species.
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.