Literature DB >> 31062345

Measurement error in μCT-based three-dimensional geometric morphometrics introduced by surface generation and landmark data acquisition.

Karolin Engelkes1, Jennice Helfsgott1, Jörg U Hammel2,3, Sebastian Büsse4, Thomas Kleinteich5, André Beerlink6, Stanislav N Gorb4, Alexander Haas1.   

Abstract

Computed-tomography-derived (CT-derived) polymesh surfaces are widely used in geometric morphometric studies. This approach is inevitably associated with decisions on scanning parameters, resolution, and segmentation strategies. Although the underlying processing steps have been shown to potentially contribute artefactual variance to three-dimensional landmark coordinates, their effects on measurement error have rarely been assessed systematically in CT-based geometric morphometric studies. The present study systematically assessed artefactual variance in landmark data introduced by the use of different voxel sizes, segmentation strategies, surface simplification degrees, and by inter- and intra-observer differences, and compared their magnitude to true biological variation. Multiple CT-derived surface variants of the anuran (Amphibia: Anura) pectoral girdle were generated by systematic changes in the factors that potentially influence the surface geometries. Twenty-four landmarks were repeatedly acquired by different observers. The contribution of all factors to the total variance in the landmark data was assessed using random-factor nested permanovas. Selected sets of Euclidean distances between landmark sets served further to compare the variance among factor levels. Landmark precision was assessed by landmark standard deviation and compared among observers and days. Results showed that all factors, except for voxel size, significantly contributed to measurement error in at least some of the analyses performed. In total, 6.75% of the variance in landmark data that mimicked a realistic biological study was caused by measurement error. In this landmark dataset, intra-observer error was the major source of artefactual variance followed by inter-observer error; the factor segmentation contributed < 1% and slight surface simplification had no significant effect. Inter-observer error clearly exceeded intra-observer error in a different landmark dataset acquired by six partly inexperienced observers. The results suggest that intra-observer error can potentially be reduced by including a training period prior to the actual landmark acquisition task and by acquiring landmarks in as few sessions as possible. Additionally, the application of moderate and careful surface simplification and, potentially, also the use of case-specific optimal combinations of automatic local thresholding algorithms and parameters for segmentation can help reduce intra-observer error. If landmark data are to be acquired by several observers, it is important to ensure that all observers are consistent in landmark identification. Despite the significant amount of artefactual variance, we have shown that landmark data acquired from microCT-derived surfaces are precise enough to study the shape of anuran pectoral girdles. Yet, a systematic assessment of measurement error is advisable for all geometric morphometric studies.
© 2019 Anatomical Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  landmark precision; measurement error; micro computed tomography; surface simplification; thresholding

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31062345      PMCID: PMC6637444          DOI: 10.1111/joa.12999

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anat        ISSN: 0021-8782            Impact factor:   2.610


  45 in total

1.  On the reliability of a geometric morphometric approach to sex determination: a blind test of six criteria of the juvenile ilium.

Authors:  Laura A B Wilson; Hugo F V Cardoso; Louise T Humphrey
Journal:  Forensic Sci Int       Date:  2010-07-08       Impact factor: 2.395

2.  Differences between sliding semi-landmark methods in geometric morphometrics, with an application to human craniofacial and dental variation.

Authors:  S Ivan Perez; Valeria Bernal; Paula N Gonzalez
Journal:  J Anat       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 2.610

3.  The problem of assessing landmark error in geometric morphometrics: theory, methods, and modifications.

Authors:  Noreen von Cramon-Taubadel; Brenda C Frazier; Marta Mirazón Lahr
Journal:  Am J Phys Anthropol       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 2.868

4.  Morphological asymmetries of mouse brain assessed by geometric morphometric analysis of MRI data.

Authors:  Jimena Barbeito-Andrés; Valeria Bernal; Paula N Gonzalez
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2016-04-21       Impact factor: 2.546

5.  A geometric morphometric validation study of computed tomography-extracted craniofacial landmarks.

Authors:  Amanda R Hale; Kenda K Honeycutt; Ann H Ross
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 1.046

Review 6.  Measurement error in geometric morphometrics.

Authors:  Carmelo Fruciano
Journal:  Dev Genes Evol       Date:  2016-04-01       Impact factor: 0.900

7.  Precision, repeatability, and validation of the localization of cranial landmarks using computed tomography scans.

Authors:  J T Richtsmeier; C H Paik; P C Elfert; T M Cole; H R Dahlman
Journal:  Cleft Palate Craniofac J       Date:  1995-05

8.  The geometrical precision of virtual bone models derived from clinical computed tomography data for forensic anthropology.

Authors:  Kerri L Colman; Johannes G G Dobbe; Kyra E Stull; Jan M Ruijter; Roelof-Jan Oostra; Rick R van Rijn; Alie E van der Merwe; Hans H de Boer; Geert J Streekstra
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2017-02-10       Impact factor: 2.686

9.  Procrustes-based geometric morphometrics on MRI images: An example of inter-operator bias in 3D landmarks and its impact on big datasets.

Authors:  Amro Daboul; Tatyana Ivanovska; Robin Bülow; Reiner Biffar; Andrea Cardini
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-05-22       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Sharing is caring? Measurement error and the issues arising from combining 3D morphometric datasets.

Authors:  Carmelo Fruciano; Mélina A Celik; Kaylene Butler; Tom Dooley; Vera Weisbecker; Matthew J Phillips
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2017-07-31       Impact factor: 2.912

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.