Automatic landmarking as a convenient prerequisite for geometric morphometrics. Validation on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)- based shape analysis of the nasal complex.

Manual landmarking is used in several manual and semi-automated prediction guidelines for approximation of the nose. The manual placement of landmarks may, however, render the analysis less repeatable due to observer subjectivity and, consequently, have an impact on the accuracy of the human facial approximation. In order to address this subjectivity and thereby improve facial approximations, we are developing an automated three-dimensional (3D) method based on an automatic dense landmarking procedure using non-rigid surface registration. The aim of this study was to validate the automatic landmarking method by comparing the intra-observer errors (INTRA-OE) and inter-observer errors (INTER-OE) between automatic and manual landmarking. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans of adult South Africans were selected from the Oral and Dental Hospital, University of Pretoria, South Africa. In this study, the validation of the automatic landmarking was performed on 20 3D surfaces. INTRA-OE and INTER-OE were analyzed by registering 41 craniometric landmarks from 10 hard-tissue surfaces and 21 capulometric landmarks from 10 soft-tissue surfaces of the same individuals. Absolute precision of the landmark positioning (both on the samples as well as the template) was assessed by calculating the measurement error (ME) for each landmark over different observers. Systematic error (bias) and relative random error (precision) was further quantified through repeated measures ANOVA (ANOVA-RM). The analysis showed that the random component of the ME in landmark positioning between the automatic observations were on average on par with the manual observations, except for the soft-tissue landmarks where automatic landmarking showed lower ME compared to manual landmarking. No bias was observed within the craniometric landmarking methods, but some bias was observed for capulometric landmarking. In conclusion, this research provides a first validation of the precision and accuracy of the automatic placement of landmarks on 3D hard- and soft-tissue surfaces and demonstrates its utilization as a convenient prerequisite for geometric morphometrics based shape analysis of the nasal complex.

[1]  A. Farman,et al.  What is cone-beam CT and how does it work? , 2008, Dental clinics of North America.

[2]  Stefan Schlager.  Soft-tissue reconstruction of the human nose : population differences and sexual dimorphism , 2013 .

[3]  Gary F. Rogers,et al.  Validity and Reliability of Craniofacial Anthropometric Measurement of 3D Digital Photogrammetric Images , 2008, The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association.

[4]  Jodi M Caple,et al.  A standardized nomenclature for craniofacial and facial anthropometry , 2015, International Journal of Legal Medicine.

[5]  Timothy F. Cootes,et al.  Active Shape Model Search using Local Grey-Level Models: A Quantitative Evaluation , 1993, BMVC.

[6]  F. Zonneveld,et al.  Linear measurements of cortical bone and dental enamel by computed tomography: applications and problems. , 1993, American journal of physical anthropology.

[7]  T A White,et al.  Mandible asymmetry and genetic diversity in island populations of the common shrew, Sorex araneus , 2008, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[8]  Fred L. Bookstein,et al.  Shape and the information in medical images: a decade of the morphometric synthesis , 1997, Proceedings of the Workshop on Mathematical Methods in Biomedical Image Analysis.

[9]  C. Fruciano.  Measurement error in geometric morphometrics , 2016, Development Genes and Evolution.

[10]  Seong-Whan Lee,et al.  Face Detection and Facial Component Extraction by Wavelet Decomposition and Support Vector Machines , 2003, AVBPA.

[11]  L. Menéndez.  Comparing Methods to Assess Intraobserver Measurement Error of 3D Craniofacial Landmarks Using Geometric Morphometrics Through a Digitizer Arm , 2017, Journal of forensic sciences.

[12]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[13]  Carl N. Stephan,et al.  Changes in face topography from supine-to-upright position-And soft tissue correction values for craniofacial identification. , 2018, Forensic science international.

[14]  Paul Suetens,et al.  Development and comparison of non-rigid surface registration algorithms and extensions , 2014 .

[15]  Mary L Marazita,et al.  Digital Three-Dimensional Photogrammetry: Evaluation of Anthropometric Precision and Accuracy Using a Genex 3D Camera System , 2004, The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association.

[16]  Carl N Stephan,et al.  On Gerasimov’s Plastic Facial Reconstruction Technique: New Insights to Facilitate Repeatability * , 2011, Journal of forensic sciences.

[17]  C N Stephan,et al.  Anthropological facial 'reconstruction--recognizing the fallacies, 'unembracing' the errors, and realizing method limits. , 2003, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[18]  Yunhong Wang,et al.  A 3D Facial Feature Point Localization Method Based on Statistical Shape Model , 2007, 2007 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing - ICASSP '07.

[19]  Patrick J. Flynn,et al.  Multiple Nose Region Matching for 3D Face Recognition under Varying Facial Expression , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[20]  Caroline Wilkinson,et al.  Facial reconstruction – anatomical art or artistic anatomy? , 2010, Journal of anatomy.

[21]  Omid Ekrami,et al.  MeshMonk: Open-source large-scale intensive 3D phenotyping , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[22]  G. Arnqvist,et al.  Measurement error in geometric morphometrics : Empirical strategies to assess and reduce its impact on measures of shape , 1998 .

[23]  S Richmond,et al.  Reproducibility of facial soft tissue landmarks on 3D laser-scanned facial images. , 2009, Orthodontics & craniofacial research.

[24]  D. Kendall.  SHAPE MANIFOLDS, PROCRUSTEAN METRICS, AND COMPLEX PROJECTIVE SPACES , 1984 .

[25]  Pascal Desbarats,et al.  Anthropological Facial Approximation in Three Dimensions (AFA3D): Computer‐Assisted Estimation of the Facial Morphology Using Geometric Morphometrics , 2014, Journal of forensic sciences.

[26]  Caroline Wilkinson,et al.  Forensic Facial Reconstruction , 2004 .

[27]  A. Chamberlain,et al.  Forensic three-dimensional facial reconstruction: historical review and contemporary developments. , 1997, Journal of forensic sciences.

[28]  Maurício Pamplona Segundo,et al.  Automatic 3D facial segmentation and landmark detection , 2007, 14th International Conference on Image Analysis and Processing (ICIAP 2007).

[29]  Paul Suetens,et al.  Craniofacial Identification: Automated facial reconstruction , 2012 .

[30]  D. Vandermeulen,et al.  Computerized craniofacial reconstruction: Conceptual framework and review. , 2010, Forensic science international.

[31]  Michael W. Kenyhercz,et al.  Forensic Anthropology and the Biological Profile in South Africa , 2018 .

[32]  John Prag,et al.  Making Faces: Using forensic and archaeological evidence , 1999 .

[33]  Chin-Seng Chua,et al.  Facial feature detection and face recognition from 2D and 3D images , 2002, Pattern Recognit. Lett..

[34]  D. Slice.  Landmark coordinates aligned by procrustes analysis do not lie in Kendall's shape space. , 2001, Systematic biology.

[35]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Automatic feature extraction for multiview 3D face recognition , 2006, 7th International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (FGR06).

[36]  S. Hashimoto,et al.  Automated feature extraction of face image and its applications , 1995, Proceedings 4th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Communication.

[37]  Jens Fagertun,et al.  3D facial landmarks: Inter-operator variability of manual annotation , 2014, BMC Medical Imaging.

[38]  B. P. Gatliff,et al.  Reconstruction of facial features from the skull: an evaluation of its usefulness in forensic anthropology. , 1970, American journal of physical anthropology.

[39]  Timothy F. Cootes,et al.  Active Appearance Models , 2001, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[40]  S. Lougheed,et al.  Measurement Error and Morphometric Studies: Statistical Power and Observer Experience , 1992 .

[41]  F L Bookstein,et al.  Biometrics, biomathematics and the morphometric synthesis. , 1996, Bulletin of mathematical biology.

[42]  A. Pérez-Pérez,et al.  Measurement error: Inter-and Intraobserver Variability. An Empiric Study , 1990 .

[43]  Carl N Stephan,et al.  Beyond the Sphere of the English Facial Approximation Literature: Ramifications of German Papers on Western Method Concepts * , 2006, Journal of forensic sciences.

[44]  Ioannis A. Kakadiaris,et al.  Three-Dimensional Face Recognition in the Presence of Facial Expressions: An Annotated Deformable Model Approach , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[45]  J. Illingworth,et al.  Automatic landmarking of faces in 3D - ALF 3D , 2008 .

[46]  Christian Peter Klingenberg,et al.  The genetics and evolution of fluctuating asymmetry , 2005 .

[47]  F. Bookstein,et al.  Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data: Geometry and Biology , 1999 .

[48]  Marta Mirazón Lahr,et al.  The problem of assessing landmark error in geometric morphometrics: theory, methods, and modifications. , 2007, American journal of physical anthropology.

[49]  D. Schmieder,et al.  Bat Species Comparisons Based on External Morphology: A Test of Traditional versus Geometric Morphometric Approaches , 2015, PloS one.