ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2026
Landmark-based morphometrics with fewer landmarks: Some examples for medical entomology.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Geometric morphometrics based on two-dimensional landmarks is a powerful tool for distinguishing morphologically similar or cryptic taxa, an important asset in the fight against medically and veterinary important arthropods. While it is commonly assumed that increasing the number of landmarks should improve discriminatory power by capturing more shape information, our findings challenge this assumption. In terms of shape discrimination (thus excluding size variation), we demonstrate that small subsets of landmarks can equal or even outperform full sets of landmarks. Fifteen examples of comparisons between closely related species were considered.These examples are drawn from published data covering six insect families: Culicidae, Glossinidae, Muscidae, Psychodidae, Reduviidae and Tabanidae. To assess the relevance of smaller subsets of landmarks, we compared the accuracy scores of unsupervised classification using full sets of landmarks (10-22 points) with those obtained using smaller subsets. To eliminate the potential influence of chance on reclassification scores, we validated our results by accounting for correct reclassification due to chance alone. The strategy for selecting relevant landmark subsets employed two different approaches. The first relied on each landmark's contribution to the total distance between shapes, thus establishing a hierarchy among them. The second, more comprehensive approach compared the reclassification scores of large random samples of landmarks, from the smallest subsets (3 landmarks) to the full set. From a public health perspective, the value of our approach lies in simplifying the tasks required for entomological surveillance: it could accelerate morphometric identification for large surveillance datasets, improve standardization among users, and reduce noise introduced by problematic landmarks. These gains are particularly relevant for distinguishing medically important but morphologically similar taxa, or when molecular tools are unavailable or too resource-intensive. The statistical procedures have been integrated into the XYOM online software, providing accessible tools for efficient landmark selection and improved morphometric analysis.
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.