MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033434602 · doi:10.3390/s20113171

Fully Automatic Landmarking of Syndromic 3D Facial Surface Scans Using 2D Images

2020· article· en· W3033434602 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFace recognition and analysis
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsLandmarkComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer visionBiometricsGround truthPattern recognition (psychology)Face (sociological concept)Set (abstract data type)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3D facial landmarks are known to be diagnostically relevant biometrics for many genetic syndromes. The objective of this study was to extend a state-of-the-art image-based 2D facial landmarking algorithm for the challenging task of 3D landmark identification on subjects with genetic syndromes, who often have moderate to severe facial dysmorphia. The automatic 3D facial landmarking algorithm presented here uses 2D image-based facial detection and landmarking models to identify 12 landmarks on 3D facial surface scans. The landmarking algorithm was evaluated using a test set of 444 facial scans with ground truth landmarks identified by two different human observers. Three hundred and sixty nine of the subjects in the test set had a genetic syndrome that is associated with facial dysmorphology. For comparison purposes, the manual landmarks were also used to initialize a non-linear surface-based registration of a non-syndromic atlas to each subject scan. Compared to the average intra- and inter-observer landmark distances of 1.1 mm and 1.5 mm respectively, the average distance between the manual landmark positions and those produced by the automatic image-based landmarking algorithm was 2.5 mm. The average error of the registration-based approach was 3.1 mm. Comparing the distributions of Procrustes distances from the mean for each landmarking approach showed that the surface registration algorithm produces a systemic bias towards the atlas shape. In summary, the image-based automatic landmarking approach performed well on this challenging test set, outperforming a semi-automatic surface registration approach, and producing landmark errors that are comparable to state-of-the-art 3D geometry-based facial landmarking algorithms evaluated on non-syndromic subjects.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it