Michael Suttie1,2, Leah Wetherill3, Sandra W Jacobson4,5, Joseph L Jacobson4,5, H Eugene Hoyme6, Elizabeth R Sowell7, Claire Coles8, Jeffrey R Wozniak9, Edward P Riley10, Kenneth L Jones11, Tatiana Foroud3, Peter Hammond1,2. 1. Nuffield Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology , University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. 2. Big Data Institute , University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 3. Department of Medical and Molecular Genetics , Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana. 4. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences , Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan. 5. Departments of Human Biology and of Psychiatry and Mental Health , University of Cape Town Faculty of Health Sciences, Cape Town, South Africa. 6. Sanford Research and Department of Pediatrics , Sanford School of Medicine, University of South Dakota, Sioux Falls, South Dakota. 7. Developmental Cognitive Neuroimaging Laboratory , Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 8. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences , Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 9. Department of Psychiatry , University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 10. Department of Psychology , San Diego State University, San Diego, California. 11. Department of Pediatrics , School of Medicine, UCSD, San Diego, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our objective is to help clinicians detect the facial effects of prenatal alcohol exposure by developing computer-based tools for screening facial form. METHODS: All 415 individuals considered were evaluated by expert dysmorphologists and categorized as (i) healthy control (HC), (ii) fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS), or (iii) heavily prenatally alcohol exposed (HE) but not clinically diagnosable as FAS; 3D facial photographs were used to build models of facial form to support discrimination studies. Surface curvature-based delineations of facial form were introduced. RESULTS: (i) Facial growth in FAS, HE, and control subgroups is similar in both cohorts. (ii) Cohort consistency of agreement between clinical diagnosis and HC-FAS facial form classification is lower for midline facial regions and higher for nonmidline regions. (iii) Specific HC-FAS differences within and between the cohorts include: for HC, a smoother philtrum in Cape Coloured individuals; for FAS, a smoother philtrum in Caucasians; for control-FAS philtrum difference, greater homogeneity in Caucasians; for control-FAS face difference, greater homogeneity in Cape Coloured individuals. (iv) Curvature changes in facial profile induced by prenatal alcohol exposure are more homogeneous and greater in Cape Coloureds than in Caucasians. (v) The Caucasian HE subset divides into clusters with control-like and FAS-like facial dysmorphism. The Cape Coloured HE subset is similarly divided for nonmidline facial regions but not clearly for midline structures. (vi) The Cape Coloured HE subset with control-like facial dysmorphism shows orbital hypertelorism. CONCLUSIONS: Facial curvature assists the recognition of the effects of prenatal alcohol exposure and helps explain why different facial regions result in inconsistent control-FAS discrimination rates in disparate ethnic groups. Heavy prenatal alcohol exposure can give rise to orbital hypertelorism, supporting a long-standing suggestion that prenatal alcohol exposure at a particular time causes increased separation of the brain hemispheres with a concomitant increase in orbital separation.
BACKGROUND: Our objective is to help clinicians detect the facial effects of prenatal alcohol exposure by developing computer-based tools for screening facial form. METHODS: All 415 individuals considered were evaluated by expert dysmorphologists and categorized as (i) healthy control (HC), (ii) fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS), or (iii) heavily prenatally alcohol exposed (HE) but not clinically diagnosable as FAS; 3D facial photographs were used to build models of facial form to support discrimination studies. Surface curvature-based delineations of facial form were introduced. RESULTS: (i) Facial growth in FAS, HE, and control subgroups is similar in both cohorts. (ii) Cohort consistency of agreement between clinical diagnosis and HC-FAS facial form classification is lower for midline facial regions and higher for nonmidline regions. (iii) Specific HC-FAS differences within and between the cohorts include: for HC, a smoother philtrum in Cape Coloured individuals; for FAS, a smoother philtrum in Caucasians; for control-FAS philtrum difference, greater homogeneity in Caucasians; for control-FAS face difference, greater homogeneity in Cape Coloured individuals. (iv) Curvature changes in facial profile induced by prenatal alcohol exposure are more homogeneous and greater in Cape Coloureds than in Caucasians. (v) The Caucasian HE subset divides into clusters with control-like and FAS-like facial dysmorphism. The Cape Coloured HE subset is similarly divided for nonmidline facial regions but not clearly for midline structures. (vi) The Cape Coloured HE subset with control-like facial dysmorphism shows orbital hypertelorism. CONCLUSIONS: Facial curvature assists the recognition of the effects of prenatal alcohol exposure and helps explain why different facial regions result in inconsistent control-FAS discrimination rates in disparate ethnic groups. Heavy prenatal alcohol exposure can give rise to orbital hypertelorism, supporting a long-standing suggestion that prenatal alcohol exposure at a particular time causes increased separation of the brain hemispheres with a concomitant increase in orbital separation.
Authors: Michael Suttie; Tatiana Foroud; Leah Wetherill; Joseph L Jacobson; Christopher D Molteno; Ernesta M Meintjes; H Eugene Hoyme; Nathaniel Khaole; Luther K Robinson; Edward P Riley; Sandra W Jacobson; Peter Hammond Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2013-02-25 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Philip A May; Kari J Hamrick; Karen D Corbin; Julie M Hasken; Anna-Susan Marais; Lesley E Brooke; Jason Blankenship; H Eugene Hoyme; J Phillip Gossage Journal: Reprod Toxicol Date: 2014-02-22 Impact factor: 3.143
Authors: Philip A May; J Phillip Gossage; Matthew Smith; Barbara G Tabachnick; Luther K Robinson; Melanie Manning; Mauro Cecanti; Kenneth Lyons Jones; Nathaniel Khaole; David Buckley; Wendy O Kalberg; Phyllis M Trujillo; H Eugene Hoyme Journal: J Dev Behav Pediatr Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 2.225
Authors: Sylvia Roozen; Gjalt-Jorn Y Peters; Gerjo Kok; David Townend; Jan Nijhuis; Leopold Curfs Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Peter Hammond; Femke Hannes; Michael Suttie; Koen Devriendt; Joris Robert Vermeesch; Francesca Faravelli; Francesca Forzano; Susan Parekh; Steve Williams; Dominic McMullan; Sarah T South; John C Carey; Oliver Quarrell Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2011-07-27 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: A Oelofse; J M A Van Raaij; A J S Benadé; M A Dhansay; J J M Tolboom; J G A J Hautvast Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: C P Klingenberg; L Wetherill; J Rogers; E Moore; R Ward; I Autti-Rämö; A Fagerlund; S W Jacobson; L K Robinson; H E Hoyme; S N Mattson; T K Li; E P Riley; T Foroud Journal: Alcohol Date: 2010-01-12 Impact factor: 2.405
Authors: Michael Suttie; Jeffrey R Wozniak; Scott E Parnell; Leah Wetherill; Sarah N Mattson; Elizabeth R Sowell; Eric Kan; Edward P Riley; Kenneth L Jones; Claire Coles; Tatiana Foroud; Peter Hammond Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2018-07-20 Impact factor: 3.455