Application of high-resolution landmark-free morphometrics to a mouse model of Down Syndrome reveals a tightly localised cranial phenotype
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Characterising phenotypes often requires quantification of anatomical shapes. Quantitative shape comparison (morphometrics) traditionally uses anatomical landmarks and is therefore limited by the number of landmarks and operator accuracy when landmarks are located manually. Here we apply a landmark-free method to characterise the craniofacial skeletal phenotype of the Dp1Tyb mouse model of Down syndrome (DS), validating it against a landmark-based approach. We identify cranial dysmorphologies in Dp1Tyb mice, especially smaller size and brachycephaly (front-back shortening) homologous to the human phenotype. The landmark-free phenotyping was less labour-intensive and required less user training than the landmark-based method. It also enabled mapping of local differences as planar expansion or shrinkage. This higher resolution and local mapping pinpointed reductions in interior mid-snout structures and occipital bones in this DS model that were not as apparent using a traditional landmark-based method. This approach could make morphometrics widely-accessible beyond traditional niches in zoology and palaeontology, especially in characterising mutant phenotypes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".