Comparing Manual and Automated Landmarking Accuracy in Geometric Morphometrics: A Study on Cattle Skulls and Distal Phalanges

IF 0.8 4区 农林科学 Q4 ANATOMY & MORPHOLOGY
Tomasz Szara, Buket Çakar, Burak Ünal, Funda Yiğit
{"title":"Comparing Manual and Automated Landmarking Accuracy in Geometric Morphometrics: A Study on Cattle Skulls and Distal Phalanges","authors":"Tomasz Szara,&nbsp;Buket Çakar,&nbsp;Burak Ünal,&nbsp;Funda Yiğit","doi":"10.1111/ahe.70036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Geometric morphometric studies often rely on accurate landmark placement to analyse shape and size variations. Manual and automated landmarking methods are widely used, but their performance can vary depending on the anatomical structure and complexity. This study compares manual and automated landmarking accuracy in two anatomical samples: the skull and the distal phalanx. Fifteen Holstein cattle skulls and 15 distal phalanges were analysed. Two landmark configurations were used: 10 and 20 landmarks for the skull and 5 and 10 landmarks for the distal phalanx. Both manual and automated landmarking were performed using Slicer software. Procrustes distance and centroid size were calculated to assess shape and size differences. ANOVA was applied to evaluate statistical differences, and PCA was conducted to visualise shape variations. Procrustes distance revealed significant differences between manual and automated landmarking for most configurations, particularly in the skull, highlighting the variability introduced by automated methods. No significant differences were observed for centroid size, indicating consistency in size measurements. Automated landmarking showed increased variability in capturing shape, especially in complex structures and higher landmark densities. Automated landmarking provides efficiency but introduces significant shape variability, particularly in complex anatomical structures. Our findings highlight the superior accuracy of manual landmarking, particularly for capturing subtle anatomical features and complex structures where automated methods face challenges. Although more time-consuming, manual landmarking minimises variability and preserves crucial morphological details, making it essential for precise analysis, especially in the presence of thresholding artefacts in 3D models. Future research should explore multiple software platforms and refine automated algorithms to improve performance in morphometric analyses.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":49290,"journal":{"name":"Anatomia Histologia Embryologia","volume":"54 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anatomia Histologia Embryologia","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ahe.70036","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ANATOMY & MORPHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Geometric morphometric studies often rely on accurate landmark placement to analyse shape and size variations. Manual and automated landmarking methods are widely used, but their performance can vary depending on the anatomical structure and complexity. This study compares manual and automated landmarking accuracy in two anatomical samples: the skull and the distal phalanx. Fifteen Holstein cattle skulls and 15 distal phalanges were analysed. Two landmark configurations were used: 10 and 20 landmarks for the skull and 5 and 10 landmarks for the distal phalanx. Both manual and automated landmarking were performed using Slicer software. Procrustes distance and centroid size were calculated to assess shape and size differences. ANOVA was applied to evaluate statistical differences, and PCA was conducted to visualise shape variations. Procrustes distance revealed significant differences between manual and automated landmarking for most configurations, particularly in the skull, highlighting the variability introduced by automated methods. No significant differences were observed for centroid size, indicating consistency in size measurements. Automated landmarking showed increased variability in capturing shape, especially in complex structures and higher landmark densities. Automated landmarking provides efficiency but introduces significant shape variability, particularly in complex anatomical structures. Our findings highlight the superior accuracy of manual landmarking, particularly for capturing subtle anatomical features and complex structures where automated methods face challenges. Although more time-consuming, manual landmarking minimises variability and preserves crucial morphological details, making it essential for precise analysis, especially in the presence of thresholding artefacts in 3D models. Future research should explore multiple software platforms and refine automated algorithms to improve performance in morphometric analyses.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Anatomia Histologia Embryologia
Anatomia Histologia Embryologia ANATOMY & MORPHOLOGY-VETERINARY SCIENCES
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
115
审稿时长
18-36 weeks
期刊介绍: Anatomia, Histologia, Embryologia is a premier international forum for the latest research on descriptive, applied and clinical anatomy, histology, embryology, and related fields. Special emphasis is placed on the links between animal morphology and veterinary and experimental medicine, consequently studies on clinically relevant species will be given priority. The editors welcome papers on medical imaging and anatomical techniques. The journal is of vital interest to clinicians, zoologists, obstetricians, and researchers working in biotechnology. Contributions include reviews, original research articles, short communications and book reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信