Mapping genes for human face shape: Exploration of univariate phenotyping strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human facial shape, while strongly heritable, involves both genetic and structural complexity, necessitating precise phenotyping for accurate assessment. Common phenotyping strategies include simplifying 3D facial features into univariate traits such as anthropometric measurements (e.g., inter-landmark distances), unsupervised dimensionality reductions (e.g., principal component analysis (PCA) and auto-encoder (AE) approaches), and assessing resemblance to particular facial gestalts (e.g., syndromic facial archetypes). This study provides a comparative assessment of these strategies in genome-wide association studies (GWASs) of 3D facial shape. Specifically, we investigated inter-landmark distances, PCA and AE-derived latent dimensions, and facial resemblance to random, extreme, and syndromic gestalts within a GWAS of 8,426 individuals of recent European ancestry. Inter-landmark distances exhibit the highest SNP-based heritability as estimated via LD score regression, followed by AE dimensions. Conversely, resemblance scores to extreme and syndromic facial gestalts display the lowest heritability, in line with expectations. Notably, the aggregation of multiple GWASs on facial resemblance to random gestalts reveals the highest number of independent genetic loci. This novel, easy-to-implement phenotyping approach holds significant promise for capturing genetically relevant morphological traits derived from complex biomedical imaging datasets, and its applications extend beyond faces. Nevertheless, these different phenotyping strategies capture different genetic influences on craniofacial shape. Thus, it remains valuable to explore these strategies individually and in combination to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the genetic factors underlying craniofacial shape and related traits.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".