3D analysis of facial morphology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dense surface models can be used to analyze 3D facial morphology by establishing a correspondence of thousands of points across each 3D face image. The models provide dramatic visualizations of 3D face-shape variation with potential for training physicians to recognize the key components of particular syndromes. We demonstrate their use to visualize and recognize shape differences in a collection of 3D face images that includes 280 controls (2 weeks to 56 years of age), 90 individuals with Noonan syndrome (NS) (7 months to 56 years), and 60 individuals with velo-cardio-facial syndrome (VCFS; 3 to 17 years of age). Ten-fold cross-validation testing of discrimination between the three groups was carried out on unseen test examples using five pattern recognition algorithms (nearest mean, C5.0 decision trees, neural networks, logistic regression, and support vector machines). For discriminating between individuals with NS and controls, the best average sensitivity and specificity levels were 92 and 93% for children, 83 and 94% for adults, and 88 and 94% for the children and adults combined. For individuals with VCFS and controls, the best results were 83 and 92%. In a comparison of individuals with NS and individuals with VCFS, a correct identification rate of 95% was achieved for both syndromes. This article contains supplementary material, which may be viewed at the American Journal of Medical Genetics website at http://www.interscience.wiley.com/jpages/0148-7299/suppmat/index.html.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".