| Literature DB >> 31737620 |
E A Audenaert1,2,3, C Pattyn1, G Steenackers3, J De Roeck1, D Vandermeulen4,5, P Claes4,5,6,7,8.
Abstract
Purpose: Statistical shape modeling provides a powerful tool for describing and analyzing human anatomy. By linearly combining the variance of the shape of a population of a given anatomical entity, statistical shape models (SSMs) identify its main modes of variation and may approximate the total variance of that population to a selected threshold, while reducing its dimensionality. Even though SSMs have been used for over two decades, they lack in characterization of their goodness of prediction, in particular when defining whether these models are actually representative for a given population.Entities:
Keywords: PCA data analysis; morphometric analysis; sex discrimination; shape modeling; validation and simulation
Year: 2019 PMID: 31737620 PMCID: PMC6837998 DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2019.00302
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol ISSN: 2296-4185
Accuracy, generalization, specificity, and compactness results for the different SSMs considered.
| Pelvis | 45.35 | 39 | 97.47 | 0.59 ± 0.08 | 2.05 ± 0.35 |
| Femur | 82.45 | 25 | 99.19 | 0.59 ± 0.06 | 1.91 ± 0.28 |
| Tibia | 89.09 | 21. | 98.74 | 0.59 ± 0.06 | 1.36 ± 0.21 |
| Patella | 63.59 | 21 | 95.01 | 0.31 ± 0.07 | 0.71 ± 0.11 |
| Calcaneum | 61.02 | 29 | 95.03 | 0.36 ± 0.05 | 0.93 ± 0.15 |
| Talus | 68.37 | 27 | 95.16 | 0.25 ± 0.08 | 0.63 ± 0.08 |
The impact of the first component describing predominantly size in the models is, respectively, described in the first column.
Figure 1Cumulative variance of the population by number principal components following a principal component analysis (PCA) to describe the different skeletal models.
Figure 2Accuracy evolution of the SSM-based shape representation (solid curve) and in-sample target accuracy (dotted curve) for different levels of prior knowledge expressed as amounts of training data in the SSM.
Figure 3Heat maps demonstrating sexual dimorphism and asymmetry in the different anatomical shapes considered. PC scores describing the male and female gender differences obtained following the canonical correlation analysis were amplified with a factor 2 when compared to the overall average shape configuration. Asymmetry findings were projected on the average symmetrical consensus shape.
Canonical correlation analysis and partial least squares regression results relating variation in shape with gender and sexual discriminative features of the different SSMs described.
| Pelvis | 0.97 ( | 12.69 | 100 | 100 |
| Femur | 0.88 ( | 27.28 | 97.24 | 95.56 |
| Tibia | 0.89 ( | 31.71 | 98.34 | 96.67 |
| Patella | 0.75 ( | 18.96 | 91.71 | 83.33 |
| Calcaneum | 0.82 ( | 33.21 | 92.82 | 85.56 |
| Talus | 0.84 ( | 42.31 | 93.92 | 86.67 |