Beyond Linear Measurement: A Practical Guide to Geometric Morphometrics for Precise Identification in Biomedical Research

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive overview of geometric morphometrics (GM), a powerful set of methods for quantifying and analyzing shape. Tailored for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, we explore the foundational principles of GM, moving from basic concepts to advanced applications. The content details practical methodologies, from landmarking to statistical analysis, and addresses common troubleshooting scenarios. It further examines how GM is validated against traditional methods and integrated with machine learning to enhance identification tasks in fields such as taxonomy, forensic science, and personalized medicine. By synthesizing current research and applications, this guide serves as a strategic resource for implementing robust shape analysis to improve the objectivity and precision of biological identification.

What is Geometric Morphometrics? Defining Shape in a Biological Context

Geometric morphometrics (GM) represents a fundamental paradigm shift in the quantitative analysis of biological form, moving science from subjective qualitative descriptions to rigorous, statistical evaluations of shape. At its core, GM is an approach that studies shape using Cartesian landmark and semilandmark coordinates that capture morphologically distinct shape variables, separate from size, position, and orientation [1]. This methodology has revolutionized how researchers across diverse fields—from anthropology to pharmaceutical development—objectively quantify and analyze morphological variation. The discipline emerged through decades of methodological refinement, beginning with Francis Galton's 1907 work on quantifying facial shapes using a base-line registration approach, later adapted by Fred Bookstein as "two-point coordinates" [1]. The foundational principle underlying GM is the preservation of geometric information throughout the statistical analysis, allowing researchers to visualize statistical results directly in the original specimen space [2]. This capability to take quantitative data back to the physical morphology of the studied specimens distinguishes GM from traditional morphometric approaches and has established it as the gold standard for shape analysis in evolutionary biology, paleontology, and increasingly in biomedical research.

The Core Principle: From Qualitative to Quantitative

The transformational principle of GM lies in its capacity to convert qualitative morphological observations into quantitative, statistically analyzable data while retaining the geometric relationships between anatomical structures. This process involves representing biological forms as configurations of anatomically defined points that can be mathematically compared across specimens. The fundamental mathematical object in GM is the configuration of landmarks—a set of two-dimensional or three-dimensional coordinates that describes the form [1]. Through this approach, complex biological shapes that would traditionally be described with subjective terms like "more curved," "narrower," or "asymmetric" are translated into precise mathematical objects amenable to multivariate statistical analysis.

This quantitative translation enables researchers to address questions about morphological variation with unprecedented rigor. For example, in pharmaceutical research, GM has been successfully applied to classify G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) structures based on characteristics such as activation state, bound ligands, and fusion proteins by analyzing the XYZ coordinates of amino acid residues at the ends of transmembrane helix bundles [3]. In botany, GM has quantified leaf shape variations to examine spontaneous hybridization between Alnus incana and Alnus rohlenae, distinguishing species along canonical variates with 93.69% of variation explained by shape differences [4]. This capacity to replace qualitative descriptors with quantitative measurements has made GM an indispensable tool across biological disciplines.

Theoretical Foundation: Shape Space and Kendall's Formalism

The theoretical foundation of modern GM rests on David Kendall's formulation of shape space, which demonstrated that figures sharing the same shape can be treated as separate points in a geometric space [1]. This conceptual framework enables the application of sophisticated statistical tools to shape analysis. The Procrustes distance between landmark configurations becomes the metric for quantifying shape differences, providing a geometrically intuitive measure of dissimilarity that corresponds to our visual perception of morphological variation [2] [1]. The mathematical rigor of this approach ensures that shape comparisons are both statistically valid and biologically meaningful.

Methodological Framework: A Step-by-Step Workflow

The implementation of GM follows a structured workflow that transforms physical specimens into analyzable quantitative data. This process involves careful study design, data collection, standardization, and statistical analysis, with each step building upon the previous one to ensure valid and interpretable results.

Study Design and Landmark Selection

The initial stage of any GM study requires careful planning to ensure the research question can be adequately addressed. The researcher must define which morphological structures need to be captured and select landmarks that effectively represent this morphology. Landmarks must be anatomically recognizable and consistent across all specimens in the study [1]. Three main types of landmarks are utilized in GM:

• Type I landmarks:

  • Defined by discrete anatomical loci (e.g., junctions between tissues or bones)
  • Highest level of anatomical correspondence
  • Example: SOS–Bas–Opi–IPP–Lam in cranial studies [5]

• Type II landmarks:

  • Defined by maximum curvature or other local geometric features
  • Example: leaf apexes in botanical studies [4]

• Type III landmarks:

  • Defined by extremal points (e.g., furthest extent of a structure)
  • Most susceptible to measurement error
  • Example: most anterior point of the nasal cavity [6]

Landmarks should be selected to properly capture the shape being studied and must be replicable, with the sample size ideally being roughly three times the number of landmarks chosen [1].

Data Collection Methods: Beyond Simple Landmarks

Contemporary GM incorporates multiple data collection strategies to capture complex morphological structures:

• Landmark digitization: Cartesian coordinates of defined anatomical points are collected using digitizing software or directly from 3D models [6] [1].

• Semilandmarks: For curves and surfaces where homologous points cannot be precisely defined, semilandmarks (sliding landmarks) are used to capture morphological information along contours and surfaces [6] [1]. In a nasal cavity study, researchers used 10 fixed landmarks complemented by 200 sliding semilandmarks distributed across the region of interest to ensure optimal coverage [6].

• Outline analysis: For structures lacking discrete landmarks, elliptic Fourier analysis captures contour shapes [7].

• Template warping: Semi-landmarks can be projected from a template to each specimen using Thin Plate Spline (TPS) warping, allowing them to slide tangentially along the surface to ensure optimal homology across specimens while minimizing distortion [6].

Table 1: Landmark Types and Their Applications in Geometric Morphometrics

Landmark Type	Definition	Anatomical Precision	Example Application
Type I	Discrete anatomical loci	High	Cranial sutures in neurocranial studies [5]
Type II	Points of maximum curvature	Medium	Leaf apexes in hybrid detection [4]
Type III	Extremal points	Low	Most anterior nasal point [6]
Semilandmarks	Sliding points on curves/surfaces	Variable	Nasal cavity contours [6]

Data Standardization: Generalized Procrustes Analysis

The core transformation from raw coordinates to comparable shape variables occurs through Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA), which removes non-shape variation through three operations [1]:

• Translation: Landmark configurations are centered at the origin (0,0) by subtracting centroid coordinates.

• Rotation: Configurations are rotated to minimize the Procrustes distance between corresponding landmarks.

• Scaling: Configurations are scaled to unit centroid size, calculated as the square root of the sum of squared distances of landmarks from their centroid [1].

The mathematical formulation of GPA can be represented as:

[ Xi' = \frac{1}{\text{CS}(Xi)} \cdot Xi \cdot \Gammai + T_i ]

Where (Xi) is the original landmark configuration for specimen (i), (\text{CS}(Xi)) is its centroid size, (\Gammai) is the rotation matrix, and (Ti) is the translation vector. The resulting Procrustes shape coordinates exist in a curved, non-Euclidean space known as Kendall's shape space [1].

This process ensures that the only differences between specimens are due to actual shape variation, not their position, orientation, or size when digitized. As demonstrated in GPCR studies, this standardization enables meaningful comparison of structures as diverse as protein configurations and cranial bones [3].

Statistical Analysis of Shape Data

Once standardized, Procrustes coordinates can be analyzed using multivariate statistical methods:

• Principal Component Analysis (PCA): The most common analytical approach in GM, PCA reduces the dimensionality of shape data to reveal major axes of variation [6] [3] [1]. Principal components are computed through an eigendecomposition of the covariance matrix of Procrustes coordinates, preserving Procrustes distances while projecting shape variables onto a low-dimensional space [1].

• Canonical Variate Analysis (CVA): Used to maximize separation between predefined groups, CVA has proven effective in species discrimination and hybrid detection [4].

• Partial Least Squares (PLS): Analyzes covariance between two sets of variables, ideal for studying integration between different morphological structures [1].

• Multivariate Regression: Examines the relationship between shape and continuous variables such as size (allometry), environment, or time [1].

Table 2: Statistical Methods in Geometric Morphometrics

Method	Primary Function	Application Example
Principal Component Analysis (PCA)	Identify major axes of shape variation	Analyzing nasal cavity variability [6]
Canonical Variate Analysis (CVA)	Maximize separation between predefined groups	Distinguishing Alnus species and hybrids [4]
Partial Least Squares (PLS)	Analyze covariance between structures	Studying cranial base vs. calvarial roof [5]
Multivariate Regression	Examine shape vs. continuous variables	Allometric studies of leaf morphology [4]

Visualization and Interpretation

A defining strength of GM is the capacity to visualize statistical results as actual morphological changes. The thin-plate spline (TPS) interpolation function visualizes shape changes as deformation grids that show how the landmark configuration of a reference form deforms into a target form [5] [1]. This powerful visualization technique, pioneered by Bookstein, allows researchers to interpret statistical patterns directly in morphological terms, bridging the gap between quantitative analysis and biological interpretation [5].

For example, in cranial growth studies, TPS deformation grids vividly illustrate the relative rotation between the posterior pentagon and anterior triangle of landmarks during development [5]. Similarly, in botanical studies, shape changes along canonical variates can be visualized as transformations from ovate leaves with short petioles and acuminate apexes to circular-obovate leaves with long petioles and retuse apexes [4].

Advanced Applications and Future Directions

GM continues to evolve with methodological advancements that expand its applications across biological disciplines:

Automated Morphological Phenotyping

Traditional GM's limitation in landmark number and placement consistency has prompted development of automated approaches. Methods like morphVQ use descriptor learning to estimate functional correspondence between whole triangular meshes, capturing more comprehensive morphological information without manual landmark identification [2]. These approaches characterize shape variation through latent shape space differences (LSSDs) and can classify biological shapes to the genus level with accuracy comparable to traditional GM [2].

Cloud-Based GM Platforms

Web applications like XYOM represent the future of GM accessibility, offering platform-independent analysis tools without requiring software installation [7]. These cloud-based solutions provide secure data storage, 24/7 accessibility, and automatic updates, lowering barriers to implementing sophisticated GM analyses [7].

Novel Domain Applications

GM has expanded beyond its biological origins into diverse fields:

• Pharmaceutical Research: GM with PCA has successfully classified GPCR structures based on activation state, bound ligands, and fusion proteins, demonstrating significant shape differences at the intracellular face [3].

• Medical Imaging: GM analysis of nasal cavity morphology has identified distinct morphological clusters that influence olfactory region accessibility, with potential applications for personalized nose-to-brain drug delivery [6].

• Paleontology: Finite-element analysis combined with GM has advanced understanding of fossil biomechanics, with improved color maps enhancing visualization and accessibility of results [8].

Essential Research Toolkit

Successful implementation of GM requires specific analytical tools and reagents:

Table 3: Essential Resources for Geometric Morphometrics Research

Resource Type	Specific Tools/Resources	Function/Purpose
Software Platforms	MorphoJ [3], Viewbox [6], XYOM [7]	Data digitization, GPA, statistical analysis
Imaging Technologies	CT scanning [6], microCT [2], surface scanners	3D model generation for landmark digitization
Statistical Packages	R (geomorph package) [6], FactoMineR [6]	Multivariate statistical analysis of shape data
Visualization Tools	Thin-plate spline [5] [1], deformation grids	Visualizing shape changes and differences

Experimental Protocol: A Representative Workflow

To illustrate the complete GM methodology, consider this protocol for a nasal cavity accessibility study [6]:

• Sample Preparation:

  • Collect 78 cranioencephalic CT scans from patients without ENT pathologies
  • Import DICOM format images into ITK-SNAP for semi-automatic segmentation
  • Export segmented volumes as STL format 3D meshes

• Landmarking Procedure:

  • Define 10 fixed anatomical landmarks on a template model
  • Distribute 200 semi-landmarks across two patches on the region of interest
  • Project semi-landmarks to all specimens via thin-plate spline warping
  • Slide semi-landmarks tangentially to ensure optimal homology

• Shape Alignment:

  • Perform Generalized Procrustes Analysis to remove size, position, and orientation effects
  • Verify alignment accuracy through Procrustes ANOVA

• Statistical Analysis:

  • Conduct Principal Component Analysis on Procrustes coordinates
  • Perform Hierarchical Clustering on Principal Components (HCPC) to identify morphological clusters
  • Validate clusters with MANOVA and post-hoc Tukey tests

• Validation:

  • Assess landmark digitization reliability through intra- and inter-operator repeatability tests
  • Calculate Lin's Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC) for agreement quantification

This comprehensive protocol demonstrates how GM systematically transforms qualitative anatomical observations into quantitative, statistically analyzable shape data.

The core principle of geometric morphometrics—the transformation of qualitative morphological descriptions into quantitative shape data through landmark-based coordinate analysis—has established a rigorous foundation for studying biological form across diverse disciplines. By preserving geometric relationships throughout statistical analysis and enabling visualization of results in morphological space, GM provides an unparalleled framework for investigating shape variation. As methodological advancements in automation, cloud computing, and visualization continue to emerge, GM's capacity to bridge qualitative observation and quantitative analysis will remain indispensable for evolutionary biology, functional morphology, and increasingly for biomedical applications such as drug development and personalized medicine. The ongoing refinement of GM methodologies ensures that this approach will continue to yield insights into the fundamental patterns and processes that govern biological form.

Geometric morphometrics (GM) is a powerful methodological approach for the quantitative analysis of biological shape, enabling researchers to capture, analyze, and visualize morphological variation with unprecedented precision. In the context of identification research—whether for taxonomic classification of species, discrimination of human populations, or characterization of pathological tissues—GM provides a rigorous statistical framework for differentiating groups based on form. The core strength of GM lies in its ability to preserve the geometric relationships of morphological structures throughout statistical analyses, allowing researchers to visualize the specific shape changes associated with their statistical findings [9] [1]. This moves beyond traditional measurement approaches by capturing the complete geometry of forms rather than relying on linear distances, ratios, or angles that may miss subtle but biologically significant shape characteristics [1].

The foundational paradigm of modern GM is landmark-based shape analysis, which utilizes coordinates of anatomically defined points rather than traditional measurements [1]. This approach has demonstrated superior discriminatory power in numerous studies, successfully distinguishing groups that traditional morphometric methods could not separate [9]. The analytical pipeline of GM involves: (1) capturing morphological data using landmarks and semilandmarks; (2) removing non-shape variation through Procrustes superimposition; and (3) analyzing the resulting shape variables using multivariate statistics [1]. This technical guide examines the core concepts of landmarks, semilandmarks, and Procrustes superimposition, with emphasis on their application to identification research across biological, anthropological, and biomedical sciences.

Landmarks: The Foundation of Shape Analysis

Definition and Types of Landmarks

Landmarks are discrete, anatomically corresponding points that can be reliably located across all specimens in a study. They provide the fundamental coordinate data that capture the geometry of morphological structures. To be biologically meaningful, landmarks must be homologous—representing the same biological position across all individuals—and their selection must adequately capture the shape features relevant to the research question [1].

Table: Types of Biological Landmarks

Landmark Type	Definition	Examples	Importance in Identification
Type I (Anatomical)	Discrete points defined by local tissue features	Foramina, suture intersections, tooth cusps	High biological homology; preferred for reliability
Type II (Mathematical)	Points of extreme curvature or local maxima/minima	Tip of a process, furthest extension point	Capture overall shape contours; may have functional significance
Type III (Extrema)	Points that define endpoints of diameters or axes	Most distal, proximal, or lateral points	Often used when Type I/II landmarks are scarce; require careful interpretation

In practical applications, the number of landmarks used should be justified by sample size considerations, with a general guideline that sample size should be roughly three times the number of landmarks collected [1]. Landmarks must be recorded in the same order for every specimen to ensure corresponding points are compared appropriately throughout subsequent analyses.

Applications and Limitations in Identification Research

The strategic selection of landmarks is critical for discrimination tasks in identification research. In anthropological applications, landmarks placed on functionally or phylogenetically significant structures have proven most effective for distinguishing human populations [9]. Similarly, in zoological studies, landmarks on skeletal elements that reflect locomotor or feeding adaptations have successfully discriminated closely related species [10].

However, landmark-only approaches face limitations when analyzing structures with large smooth areas or complex curves that lack discrete anatomical points. Biological forms such as cranial vaults, dental occlusal surfaces, and many fish bodies contain extensive morphological information in regions devoid of Type I-III landmarks [9] [10]. This limitation motivated the development of semilandmarks, which extend the power of geometric morphometrics to encompass contours and surfaces.

Semilandmarks: Capturing Curves and Surfaces

The Biological and Statistical Rationale for Semilandmarks

Semilandmarks (also called sliding landmarks) were developed to quantify the shape of morphological structures characterized by smooth curves and surfaces where traditional landmarks are insufficient [9] [1]. The fundamental concept is that while entire curves or contours should be homologous across specimens, the individual points along those curves need not be [9]. Semilandmarks thus allow researchers to capture homologous contours by placing points at corresponding positions along curves defined by terminal landmarks.

The statistical challenge addressed by semilandmarks is the tangential variation that occurs when points are arbitrarily placed along curves. This non-homologous variation must be removed to isolate biologically meaningful shape differences [9]. The sliding process achieves this by minimizing either bending energy or Procrustes distance between each specimen and a reference configuration, effectively removing the component of variation along the tangent to the curve while preserving shape information perpendicular to it [9].

Practical Implementation of Semilandmarks

The implementation of semilandmarks follows a standardized protocol. First, curves must begin and end on definable traditional landmarks to establish homology. Second, semilandmarks must be equal in number and equally spaced (by chord length or curvature) across all specimens. Modern geometric morphometric software packages facilitate this process through semi-automated placement [1].

The sliding process can be accomplished through two primary criteria with different theoretical foundations and practical implications:

Table: Comparison of Semilandmark Sliding Criteria

Criterion	Theoretical Basis	Mathematical Approach	Impact on Analysis
Minimum Bending Energy (BE)	Assumes contours result from smoothest possible deformation of reference	Minimizes energy required to deform reference to specimen	Conservative approach; may smooth subtle shape features
Minimum Procrustes Distance (D)	Directly minimizes distance between corresponding points	Aligns points along perpendiculars to reference curve	May preserve more localized shape variations

The choice between these criteria has demonstrated measurable effects on analytical outcomes, particularly when morphological variation in the sample is small, as is common in studies of modern human populations or closely related species [9]. Empirical comparisons show that while statistical significance (F-scores and P-values) is often similar between methods, estimates of within- and between-group variation can differ, and correlation between principal component axes may be low [9].

Procrustes Superimposition: Isolating Shape Variation

The Mathematical Foundation of Procrustes Analysis

Procrustes superimposition is the computational procedure that removes non-shape variation from landmark coordinates, enabling the isolation of pure shape differences for statistical analysis. The name derives from the method's analogous function to the mythological innkeeper Procrustes, who would stretch or cut his guests to fit his bed—the statistical procedure "stretches," rotates, and translates landmark configurations to achieve optimal alignment [11].

The mathematical objective of Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA) is to minimize the sum of squared distances between corresponding landmarks across all specimens through translation, scaling, and rotation [12] [13] [11]. This is achieved by:

• Translating configurations to a common centroid (usually 0,0 in 2D or 0,0,0 in 3D)
• Scaling to unit centroid size (the square root of the sum of squared distances of landmarks from their centroid)
• Rotating until the sum of squared distances between corresponding landmarks is minimized [12] [1]

The resulting Procrustes coordinates describe shape per se, with the effects of location, scale, and orientation removed [12]. These coordinates exist in a curved space (Kendall's shape space), but for practical statistical analysis, they are projected to a linear tangent space where standard multivariate statistics can be applied [13].

Procedural Implementation in Identification Research

The following workflow diagram illustrates the Procrustes superimposition process:

Procrustes Superimposition Workflow

The Goodness-of-fit of Procrustes superimposition is typically quantified by the Procrustes statistic (m²), which measures the sum of squared distances between corresponding landmarks after alignment [11]. The statistical significance of shape differences between groups is commonly assessed using permutation tests, which randomly reassign specimen identities to create null distributions [11].

Experimental Protocols for Morphometric Identification Studies

Standardized Data Collection Pipeline

Robust morphometric analysis requires meticulous attention to data collection protocols. The following methodology has been validated across multiple identification research contexts, from anthropological classification to fish assemblage studies [9] [10]:

• Specimen Preparation and Imaging

  • Standardize orientation using anatomical planes (e.g., Frankfurt horizontal for crania)
  • Maintain consistent camera-to-specimen distance and angle
  • Use scale references for potential traditional morphometric comparisons
  • For 3D data, employ CT or laser scanning with consistent resolution parameters

• Landmark and Semilandmark Digitization

  • Use software such as tpsDig for 2D data or specialized packages for 3D data
  • Apply consistent landmark numbering schemes across all specimens
  • For curves, employ tools like MakeFan to ensure consistent semilandmark spacing
  • Implement blinding procedures when possible to minimize digitizer bias

• Data Validation

  • Check for missing landmarks and coordinate outliers
  • Verify landmark configuration consistency using graphical displays
  • Assess digitizer error through repeated measurements of specimen subsets

Analytical Framework for Discrimination Studies

Once shape variables are obtained through Procrustes superimposition, multiple multivariate statistical approaches can be employed for identification purposes:

• Principal Component Analysis (PCA) : Reduces dimensionality while preserving Procrustes distances, revealing major axes of shape variation within the sample [12] [1]. PC scores can be plotted to visualize group separation and identify outliers.

• Discriminant Function Analysis (DFA) : Maximizes separation between pre-defined groups, providing classification functions for unknown specimens [9]. Cross-validation procedures should be used to avoid overfitting.

• Partial Least Squares (PLS) : Analyzes covariance between shape variables and external factors (e.g., ecological variables, genetic distances), particularly useful for identifying shape features correlated with specific environmental or functional parameters [1].

The following diagram illustrates the complete analytical pipeline from specimen to identification:

Complete Geometric Morphometrics Workflow

Essential Research Tools and Reagents

Table: Research Toolkit for Geometric Morphometric Studies

Tool Category	Specific Software/Packages	Primary Function	Application Context
Data Acquisition	tpsDig, MakeFan, Landmark	Landmark digitization	2D and 3D coordinate collection
Data Processing	MorphoJ, tpsRelw, EVAN Toolbox	Procrustes superimposition	Shape variable generation
Statistical Analysis	R (geomorph, shapes), PAST	Multivariate statistics	Group discrimination, allometry
Visualization	tpsSuper, MeshLab	Shape deformation display	Visualization of group differences

Landmarks, semilandmarks, and Procrustes superimposition constitute the essential methodological triad of modern geometric morphometrics for identification research. When implemented through rigorous protocols, these approaches provide powerful discriminatory capability for differentiating biological groups with subtle morphological differences. The integration of semilandmarks has particularly enhanced the ability to capture comprehensive shape information from complex biological structures, while Procrustes methods ensure that analyzed variables represent genuine shape differences rather than positional, orientational, or size artifacts.

Future methodological developments will likely focus on improving the automation of landmark placement, refining sliding algorithms for complex surfaces, and enhancing the integration of geometric morphometrics with genomic and ecological data. As these techniques continue to evolve, their application across biological, biomedical, and anthropological sciences will further strengthen our capacity to identify and interpret subtle patterns in morphological variation.

In scientific disciplines ranging from paleontology to drug development, the accurate identification of biological specimens is foundational. For decades, traditional morphometric approaches reliant on linear measurements, ratios, and size have provided the cornerstone for taxonomic and phenotypic classification. However, a growing body of evidence demonstrates that size alone provides an incomplete picture, often failing to capture the nuanced shape variations critical for robust identification. Size-based metrics, while valuable for quantifying gross dimensional differences, cannot adequately describe complex morphological structures, leading to potential misclassification, especially in cases of evolutionary convergence or subtle phenotypic changes induced by environmental or pharmaceutical factors.

The integration of geometric morphometrics (GM) represents a paradigm shift in morphological analysis. This powerful quantitative toolset allows researchers to capture, analyze, and visualize the precise geometry of biological forms, separating shape from size and providing a richer, more informative dataset. By using landmarks and semilandmarks to quantify shape, geometric morphometrics detects minimal morphological differences that are often overlooked by purely qualitative analyses or traditional measurements [14]. This technical guide explores the theoretical and practical superiority of shape-based analysis, providing researchers and drug development professionals with the methodologies and protocols to apply geometric morphometrics for enhanced identification accuracy in their respective fields.

Theoretical Foundations: Geometric vs. Traditional Morphometrics

Defining the Approaches

Traditional morphometrics is primarily concerned with the measurement of linear distances, angles, and ratios between defined points. Common analyses include caliper-based measurements of length, width, and height, followed by multivariate statistical analysis of these derived metrics. While this approach can successfully differentiate broadly dissimilar forms, it possesses an inherent limitation: it cannot fully capture the spatial arrangement of morphological structures. As a result, significant shape information contained in the relative positions of landmarks is lost.

In contrast, geometric morphometrics is a landmark-based approach that preserves the geometric configuration of the entire structure throughout the analysis. The core of GM is the Procrustes method, which translates, scales, and rotates landmark configurations to remove the effects of position, orientation, and scale, allowing for the exclusive analysis of shape variation [15]. The resulting Procrustes coordinates form the basis for powerful statistical shape analysis, enabling researchers to visualize shape changes and model morphological differences with high precision.

Comparative Advantages of Geometric Morphometrics

Empirical studies across diverse fields consistently demonstrate the advantages of geometric morphometrics. In a direct comparison study on isolated fossil shark teeth, geometric morphometrics not only recovered the same taxonomic separation identified by traditional morphometrics but also captured additional shape variables that traditional methods did not consider [14]. Consequently, geometric morphometrics provides a larger amount of information about tooth morphology, representing a more powerful tool for supporting taxonomic identification.

Similarly, research on the fish species Colossoma macropomum used geometric morphometrics to identify statistically significant sexual dimorphism in body shape that linear measurements could only partially describe. Females were characterized by a shorter and narrower body form, while males exhibited a longer and broader morphology, with key differences identified in the caudal fin base and anal fin position [16]. The integration of both methods provided a more comprehensive assessment than either could achieve alone.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Morphometric Approaches

Feature	Traditional Morphometrics	Geometric Morphometrics
Data Type	Linear distances, angles, ratios	Cartesian coordinates of landmarks
Shape Capture	Limited; infers shape from measurements	Comprehensive; directly analyzes geometry
Visualization	Limited graphical output	Rich visualization (e.g., deformation grids)
Information Yield	Moderate	High; captures more shape variables
Key Advantage	Simplicity of data collection	High detail and precision of shape analysis

Experimental Evidence and Applications

Case Study 1: Taxonomic Identification in Fossil Shark Teeth

Background & Objective: Isolated teeth are the most abundant element of the shark fossil record, but their taxonomic identification based on qualitative characters is prone to error. To evaluate the reliability of quantitative approaches, a study was designed to test whether geometric and traditional morphometrics could support a priori qualitative taxonomic identifications of isolated lamniform shark teeth [14].

Methodology:

• Sample: 120 isolated teeth from fossil and extant lamniform sharks (genera Brachycarcharias, Carcharias, Carcharomodus, and Lamna).
• Landmarking: A total of 7 homologous landmarks and 8 semilandmarks were digitized on the lingual or labial side of each tooth using TPSdig 2.32 software. Semilandmarks were placed along the curved profile of the ventral margin of the tooth root to capture outline geometry [14].
• Analysis: Procrustes superimposition was performed to remove non-shape variation, followed by multivariate statistical analysis (e.g., Principal Component Analysis) of the Procrustes coordinates.

Results & Conclusion: The analysis demonstrated that geometric morphometrics successfully recovered the taxonomic separation identified by traditional morphometrics. Crucially, it also captured additional, subtle shape variations that the traditional approach failed to detect. The study concluded that geometric morphometrics provides a more powerful tool for supporting the taxonomic identification of isolated fossil shark teeth due to its ability to capture a larger amount of morphologically informative data [14].

Case Study 2: Detecting Reproductive Stages in Killer Whales

Background & Objective: Monitoring reproductive rates in free-ranging cetaceans is essential for understanding population health, but existing methods like drone-based body width assessments struggle to identify early-stage pregnancies. This study developed a geometric morphometric protocol to reliably detect various reproductive stages from aerial imagery of killer whales (Orcinus orca) [17].

Methodology:

• Sample & Imagery: A four-year dataset of drone-based aerial images of Northern Resident killer whales of known reproductive status (non-pregnant, early-stage pregnant, late-stage pregnant, lactating).
• Landmarking: An optimal configuration of 6 landmarks was digitized on each whale image to represent body shape.
• Validation & Analysis: Procrustes distances and Discriminant Function Analysis (DFA) were used to test for significant shape differences between reproductive classes.

Results & Conclusion: The geometric morphometric protocol significantly separated body shapes related to reproductive status for all classes except between lactating stages. Most notably, it reliably detected early-stage pregnancy, a previously elusive metric. The study highlighted the method's utility for rapid, non-invasive determination of reproductive status in free-ranging cetaceans, providing critical data for understanding miscarriage rates and population dynamics [17].

Case Study 3: Teratogenicity Testing in Developmental Biology

Background & Objective: In toxicology and drug development, identifying the teratogenic potential of compounds (their ability to cause fetal malformations) is of critical importance. A standardized protocol was developed using geometric morphometrics to offer a quantitative, highly detailed approach for characterizing teratogen-induced malformations, surpassing the precision of traditional biometric methods [15].

Methodology:

• Sample Processing: Embryos exposed to potential teratogens are prepared and imaged.
• Software & Analysis: The Procrustes method is implemented using ImageJ and MorphoJ software. Landmarks are placed at defined morphological features of the embryos.
• Output: The analysis produces a quantitative signature of the malformations, allowing researchers to cluster unknown compounds or assign specific teratogenic pathways according to the phenotypes they produce.

Results & Conclusion: This methodology provides a significant advantage in terms of detail and precision, moving the field a step closer to being able to assign molecular pathways to specific teratogenic signatures. It represents a robust protocol for teratogenicity testing in drug development and environmental safety studies [15].

Table 2: Summary of Key Experimental Findings

Field of Study	Research Objective	Key Finding Using Geometric Morphometrics
Paleontology [14]	Taxonomically identify fossil shark teeth	Recovered all traditional taxonomic separations + identified additional shape variables.
Ecology [17]	Detect reproductive status in killer whales	Reliably identified early-stage pregnancy from aerial imagery; significant shape separation between most reproductive classes.
Toxicology [15]	Characterize teratogenic malformations	Enabled high-precision analysis of embryonic morphology for clustering unknown teratogens.
Aquatic Biology [16]	Analyze sexual dimorphism in C. macropomum	Quantified distinct body shapes between sexes (shorter/narrower females vs. longer/broader males).

The application of geometric morphometrics requires a specific set of tools, both conceptual and software-based. The following table details key resources essential for conducting a robust GM analysis.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Geometric Morphometrics

Tool/Resource	Type	Function & Application
TPSdig 2.32 [14]	Software	Used for the digitization of landmarks and semilandmarks from 2D images.
MorphoJ [15] [16]	Software	Performs comprehensive geometric morphometric analyses, including Procrustes superimposition, PCA, CVA, and regression.
ImageJ [17] [15]	Software	Open-source image processing platform used for preliminary image adjustment and analysis.
Procrustes Method [15]	Analytical Algorithm	The core mathematical procedure for superimposing landmark configurations to remove effects of position, rotation, and scale.
Homologous Landmarks	Conceptual Framework	Anatomically corresponding points that can be reliably identified across all specimens in a study.
Semilandmarks [14]	Conceptual Framework	Points used to capture the geometry of curves and outlines where homologous landmarks are insufficient.

Experimental Workflow and Data Analysis

The standard workflow for a geometric morphometric study involves a series of structured steps, from study design to the final interpretation of shape changes. The following diagram visualizes this integrated pipeline.

Geometric Morphometrics Workflow

Workflow Stage Descriptions

• Study Design & Specimen Sampling: A critical first step involving the definition of the research question and the assembly of a representative sample. Incomplete specimens are often excluded to ensure reliable statistical comparisons [14].
• Data Acquisition: High-quality, consistent images or scans of specimens are obtained. In studies of free-ranging animals, this is often done using drone-based aerial imagery [17].
• Landmark & Semilandmark Digitization: Using software like TPSdig, researchers digitize two types of points on each image. Homologous landmarks are precise anatomical points that correspond across all specimens. Semilandmarks are used to capture the shape of curves and outlines between landmarks [14].
• Procrustes Superimposition: This is the core analytical step that separates shape from other variables. The algorithm translates, rotates, and scales all landmark configurations to a common coordinate system, minimizing the Procrustes distance (the sum of squared differences between corresponding landmarks) across specimens [15].
• Multivariate Statistical Analysis: The resulting Procrustes coordinates are analyzed using techniques like Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to identify major axes of shape variation, or Canonical Variate Analysis (CVA) to test for shape differences between pre-defined groups [17] [16].
• Visualization & Interpretation: The statistical results are interpreted using powerful visualizations such as deformation grids (thin-plate splines) that show how the landmark configuration changes along principal components or between group averages, making shape changes intuitively understandable [16].

The evidence is clear: for precise and reliable identification in biological research, size alone is not enough. Geometric morphometrics provides a superior framework for capturing the rich information contained in the shape of biological structures. Its applications, demonstrated here in paleontology, ecology, and toxicology, offer a common methodological thread that yields more nuanced and powerful insights than traditional linear morphometrics.

The ongoing integration of geometric morphometrics with other data streams, such as genomic and ecological data, promises a more holistic understanding of phenotypic variation. As imaging technologies become more accessible and analytical software more sophisticated, the adoption of shape-based analysis is poised to become standard practice, revolutionizing identification and classification across the life sciences and beyond.

Geometric morphometrics (GM) provides an advanced toolkit for anthropology and biology, fundamentally based on the concept of shape defined as all geometric information about an object that remains after discounting the effects of location, scale, and rotation [18]. In practical terms, GM uses landmark configurations—discrete, homologous points on biological structures—to capture shape variation in a statistically rigorous, coordinate-based framework [19]. The concept of morphospace emerges from this approach as a attempt to map the products of evolution within a quantitative framework, asking whether morphological evolution operates within constraints or diffuses to fill all possible forms [20]. This quantitative mapping allows researchers to investigate whether endless forms truly exist or if limitations constrain morphological variety.

The core advantage of GM over traditional measurement-based approaches lies in its ability to retain complete geometric information throughout the analysis. Whereas traditional morphometrics might measure distances or angles, GM preserves the spatial relationships between landmarks, enabling both statistical analysis and visualizations of shape change [19] [21]. This powerful combination has made GM invaluable for discriminating closely related taxa, analyzing macroevolutionary trends, studying integration and evolvability, and investigating developmental patterns [19].

Theoretical Foundations: From Landmarks to Shape Space

Landmark Types and Protocols

The foundation of any GM study rests on the careful selection and digitization of landmarks. Bookstein established a widely used classification system for landmarks [22]:

Table 1: Types of Landmarks in Geometric Morphometrics

Landmark Type	Description	Examples
Type I	Juxtaposition of tissues	Intersection of two sutures
Type II	Maxima of curvature	Deepest point in a depression
Type III	Extremal points	Endpoint or centroid of a curve

In practice, many biological structures lack sufficient Type I and II landmarks, necessitating the use of semi-landmarks to capture information along curves and surfaces [22]. These semi-landmarks are not homologous in the traditional sense but represent homologous curves or surfaces, and they are typically aligned based on their relative positions to fixed landmarks [22]. The process of determining the optimal number and placement of these points is crucial—too few points risk missing important morphological information, while too many decrease statistical power and computational efficiency [23].

The Procrustes Superimposition

The essential first step in GM analysis is Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA), which removes non-shape variation through an iterative least-squares optimization process [23]. During alignment:

• Translation: Each shape configuration is shifted so its center (centroid) moves to a common origin
• Scaling: Configurations are rescaled to unit centroid size
• Rotation: Configurations are rotated to minimize distances between corresponding landmarks [23]

This process leaves the newly aligned coordinate configurations registered in Kendall's shape space—a non-Euclidean space where each landmark configuration represents a point in high-dimensional space [23] [22]. For statistical analysis, these points are typically projected into a linear tangent space where standard multivariate statistics can be applied with acceptable accuracy [23].

Principal Component Analysis in Morphometric Workflow

The Role of PCA in Shape Analysis

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) projects the superimposed data produced by GPA onto a set of uncorrelated variables called principal components (PCs) [22]. These PCs are eigenvectors of the covariance matrix, with each subsequent component explaining a progressively smaller proportion of the total variance in the data [3]. In morphometric applications, the first few PCs typically capture the major axes of shape variation, allowing researchers to visualize complex multivariate data in two or three dimensions [24].

The PCA workflow in GM typically involves:

• Calculating the covariance matrix from Procrustes-aligned coordinates
• Extracting eigenvectors (PCs) and eigenvalues (variance explained)
• Projecting specimens onto the new PC axes to generate scores for visualization
• Interpreting shape changes associated with each PC axis [24]

Complete Analytical Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the standard geometric morphometrics pipeline from data collection through final interpretation:

Critical Methodological Considerations & Protocols

Sample Size and Study Design

Sample size determination represents a fundamental consideration in GM study design. Recent research indicates that reducing sample size directly impacts the accuracy of mean shape estimation and increases shape variance [19]. For the bat species Lasiurus borealis and Nycticeius humeralis, large intraspecific sample sizes (n > 70) revealed that smaller samples distorted biological conclusions about mean shape and shape variance [19]. There is likely no universally applicable sample size that applies across all research questions and biological systems [19]. Instead, researchers should conduct preliminary analyses using multiple sample sizes to establish the robustness of their findings.

Experimental Protocol: A Bat Crania Case Study

Research Objective: To characterize cranial shape variation between bat species and evaluate the impact of sample size on shape estimates [19].

Materials & Specimens:

• Crania and mandibulae from Lasiurus borealis (males: n=24; females: n=48)
• Lasiurus seminolus (males: n=10; females: n=12)
• Nycticeius humeralis (males: n=42; females: n=39) [19]

Imaging Protocol:

• Photograph specimens with a digital SLR camera (e.g., Canon EOS 70D) with macro lens
• Mount camera on photostand to maintain consistent angle
• Capture crania in lateral and ventral views
• Photograph mandibulae in lateral view with long axis parallel to lens [19]

Landmarking Protocol:

• Digitize landmarks and semi-landmarks using tpsDIG2 software [19]
• Define landmark configurations for each view:
  • Lateral cranium: 14 landmarks + 15 semi-landmarks (1 curve)
  • Ventral cranium: 19 landmarks + 6 semi-landmarks (1 curve)
  • Lateral mandible: 10 landmarks + 30 semi-landmarks (3 curves) [19]
• Have all landmarking performed by single observer to eliminate inter-observer error
• Check landmark consistency by second researcher

Data Processing:

• Import landmarks into R statistical environment with geomorph package [19]
• Perform Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA)
• Slide semi-landmarks according to bending energy criterion [19]
• Conduct Principal Component Analysis (PCA) on aligned coordinates

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Software for Geometric Morphometrics

Resource	Type	Function	Application Example
tpsDIG2	Software	Landmark digitization	Collecting 2D coordinate data from specimen images [19]
MorphoJ	Software	GM analysis & visualization	PCA, discriminant analysis, shape visualization [3] [24]
geomorph R package	Software	Statistical analysis of shapes	Procrustes alignment, PCA, statistical testing [19]
Structured-light scanner	Hardware	3D surface capture	Creating high-resolution 3D models of specimens [23]
Digital SLR with macro lens	Hardware	2D image acquisition	Standardized specimen photography [19]
Landmark template	Protocol	Standardized point placement	Ensuring homologous landmark placement across specimens [23]

Applications Across Biological Disciplines

Taxonomic Discrimination in Challenging Groups

GM with PCA has proven particularly valuable for discriminating morphologically cryptic species. In a study of Carex sedges, researchers used utricle (fruit) shape variation to resolve systematic affinities of two problematic species (C. herteri and C. hypsipedos) [21]. The analysis involved Procrustes alignment of utricle landmarks followed by PCA, which revealed shape differences supporting the exclusion of these species from the C. phalaroides group—a finding with significant implications for understanding evolutionary relationships in this complex plant group [21].

Cross-Disciplinary Application: GPCR Structural Biology

In a novel interdisciplinary application, researchers applied GM to analyze G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) structures [25] [3]. Using the Cartesian coordinates of alpha-carbon atoms at the ends of transmembrane helices as landmarks, they performed Procrustes superimposition and PCA to classify receptors based on activation state, bound ligands, and fusion proteins [3]. This approach successfully discriminated structural variations between active and inactive states, demonstrating GM's utility beyond traditional biological morphology [25].

Limitations and Methodological Challenges

PCA Interpretation Challenges

Despite its widespread use, PCA interpretation in morphometrics requires caution. A significant critique highlights that PCA outcomes are "artefacts of the input data" and may be "neither reliable, robust, nor reproducible" as often assumed [22]. In high-dimensional GM data (where variable count exceeds specimen count), PCA can produce misleading patterns, including:

• Fictitious group separations even when groups are arbitrary [26]
• Overestimation of biological signals due to mathematical artifacts [22]
• Sensitivity to data preprocessing and landmark selection [22]

Between-groups PCA (bgPCA) presents particular concerns, as it may generate the appearance of clear group separations even when applied to patternless data [26]. In one demonstration, bgPCA produced perfectly separated groups from data where no actual differences existed—a potentially catastrophic failure for biological inference [26].

Data Quality and Missing Data

Practical challenges in GM include handling missing data and determining appropriate coordinate point density [23]. Archaeological and paleontological specimens often exhibit damage or fragmentation, requiring statistical imputation methods. However, parametric imputation approaches face constraints in the amount of missing data they can reliably handle [23]. Optimal point density varies depending on research hypotheses, with under-sampling risking loss of morphological information and over-sampling reducing statistical power [23].

Best Practices and Future Directions

To maximize robustness in morphometric studies, researchers should:

• Conduct power analyses to determine adequate sample sizes rather than relying on arbitrary thresholds [19]
• Validate PCA results with complementary multivariate techniques and machine learning classifiers [22]
• Use multiple views and elements when testing hypotheses, as shape differences are not always consistent across perspectives [19]
• Apply diagnostic challenges to bgPCA and other sensitive multivariate methods [26]
• Report detailed methodologies including landmark definitions, imaging protocols, and software parameters to enhance reproducibility [19] [23]

The integration of GM with emerging computational approaches—including machine learning classification and phylogenetic comparative methods—represents a promising frontier for extracting richer biological insights from shape data while mitigating the limitations of traditional multivariate approaches [22].

Table 3: Troubleshooting Common Challenges in Morphometric PCA

Challenge	Potential Solution	Considerations
Small sample sizes	Power analysis; resampling methods	Reduced samples impact mean shape accuracy [19]
Missing data	Statistical imputation; template warping	Effectiveness depends on extent of missingness [23]
Fictitious group separation	Validation with supervised classifiers; cross-validation	bgPCA particularly prone to artifacts [22] [26]
Landmark placement error	Single observer; training; precision assessment	Type III landmarks and semi-landmarks increase subjectivity [22]
View/element selection	Multiple perspectives; preliminary analyses	Shape differences not always consistent across views [19]

From Data to Discovery: A Step-by-Step GM Protocol for Biomedical Identification

Geometric morphometrics (GM) has emerged as a primary method for quantifying biological shape, providing an unbiased approach for morphological comparison essential for identification research in fields such as taxonomy, evolution, and pharmaceutical development [27]. This whitepaper details a comprehensive workflow for GM shape analysis, encompassing image acquisition, morphological digitization, statistical analysis, and biological interpretation. The protocol integrates both traditional landmark-based approaches and emerging automated phenotyping technologies, enabling researchers to capture and quantify shape variation with high precision and reproducibility. By framing this workflow within identification science, we establish a rigorous methodological foundation for distinguishing biological groups based on morphological characteristics, with particular relevance for species identification, phenotypic screening, and evolutionary morphological studies.

Morphology serves as a fundamental trait in biological sciences, underpinning key evolutionary and developmental processes [27]. Geometric morphometrics provides a quantitative framework for analyzing shape variation that retains the geometric information inherent in morphological structures. For identification research, GM offers powerful discriminatory capabilities for classifying specimens into biologically meaningful groups based on shape characteristics [28]. The methodology has evolved significantly from traditional measurement-based approaches to sophisticated landmark-based systems that capture the geometric configuration of morphological structures [27] [28].

The core principle of GM involves representing biological shapes as configurations of landmarks—discrete anatomical points that correspond across specimens [27]. These configurations undergo Procrustes superimposition to remove variation due to position, orientation, and scale, isolating pure shape variation for subsequent statistical analysis [27]. This whitepaper outlines a standardized workflow from initial image acquisition through final interpretation, with specific application to identification research. The protocols described accommodate both two-dimensional and three-dimensional data, though the exemplar workflow focuses on 2D applications for clarity.

Core Workflow for Geometric Morphometrics

The following diagram illustrates the comprehensive workflow for geometric morphometric analysis, integrating both traditional and automated approaches:

Detailed Methodological Protocols

Imaging and Data Acquisition

Proper image acquisition forms the critical foundation for reliable geometric morphometric analysis. Standardized protocols must be implemented to minimize technical variance that could confound biological shape variation.

Table 1: Image Acquisition Specifications for Morphometric Studies

Parameter	Specification	Rationale
Camera Position	Fixed position with lens perpendicular to specimen plane [27]	Eliminates perspective distortion
Specimen Orientation	Body axis horizontal with consistent left/right orientation [27]	Standardizes coordinate system
Background	Solid, contrasting color [27]	Facilitates automated background removal
Image Resolution	2-10 MB file size (2266+ KB for detailed analysis) [27]	Balances detail with processing requirements
Image Format	JPEG, PNG, or other lossless formats [27]	Preserves image quality through processing
Scale Reference	Inclusion of scale bar in image frame	Enables size calibration when needed

Experimental Protocol: Image Standardization

• Position the camera on a fixed mount with the lens perpendicular to the imaging surface
• Place specimens on a solid-color background (typically white or black) with sufficient contrast
• Orient all specimens consistently (e.g., lateral view with head facing left) [27]
• Use soft materials to adjust specimen position without causing deformation
• Capture images in macro mode after careful focusing
• Store images in uncompressed or minimally compressed formats
• Implement quality control to exclude images with poor resolution, abnormal appearance, or incomplete outlines [27]

For existing image datasets (e.g., museum specimens, online repositories), verify resolution and orientation consistency before inclusion in analysis. AI-based background removal tools can be employed to standardize images from diverse sources [27].

Morphological Digitization

Digitization converts morphological information into quantitative data through landmark placement. Landmarks are categorized based on their biological and mathematical properties, with selection heavily influenced by research questions and biological interpretation [27].

Table 2: Landmark Types in Geometric Morphometrics

Landmark Type	Definition	Examples	Applications in Identification
Type I (Anatomical)	Points of clear biological significance [27]	Tip of nose, corner of eye, bone junctions [27]	High reliability for homologous structures; essential for taxonomic identification
Type II (Mathematical)	Points defined by geometric properties [27]	Point of maximum curvature, deepest notch point [27]	Captures shape information where anatomical landmarks are sparse
Type III (Constructed)	Points defined by relative position [27]	Midpoint between landmarks, evenly spaced points [27]	Outlines complex shapes; supplements fixed landmarks

Experimental Protocol: Landmark Digitization

• Landmark Selection: Identify biologically homologous points across all specimens based on anatomical knowledge
• Landmark Definition: Create a standardized protocol for landmark placement, including precise definitions for each point
• Digitization Process:
  • For manual digitization: Use software (tpsDig2) to place landmarks consistently across all specimens [27]
  • For automated approaches: Apply algorithms (morphVQ, auto3DGM) to establish correspondence between shapes [2]
• Semi-landmark Placement: Add points along curves and outlines to capture comprehensive shape information [27]
• Quality Control: Verify landmark placement consistency through repeated digitization of subset of specimens

Emerging Automated Approaches: Recent advancements include morphVQ, which uses descriptor learning to estimate functional correspondence between whole triangular meshes without manual landmark placement [2]. This approach captures more comprehensive morphological detail and reduces observer bias, showing comparable classification accuracy to traditional methods for biological groupings [2].

Shape Analysis Methods

Following digitization, shape data undergoes statistical analysis to extract biologically meaningful patterns. The core methodology involves Procrustes superimposition to align landmark configurations, followed by multivariate statistical analysis.

Experimental Protocol: Procrustes Analysis

• Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA):
  • Center each landmark configuration to centroid (0,0)
  • Scale configurations to unit centroid size
  • Rotate configurations to minimize distances between corresponding landmarks
• Procrustes Coordinates: Extract Procrustes-aligned coordinates for statistical analysis [27]
• Centroid Size Calculation: Retain centroid size as a measure of overall size for allometry studies

Table 3: Multivariate Statistical Methods in Geometric Morphometrics

Method	Purpose	Application in Identification Research
Principal Component Analysis (PCA)	Identifies major modes of shape variation [27]	Redimensionality; reveals primary shape axes separating groups
Canonical Variate Analysis (CVA)	Maximizes separation between predefined groups [27]	Discriminates between known categories; builds classification functions
Discriminant Function Analysis (DFA)	Classifies specimens into predefined groups [27]	Creates identification models; predicts group membership
Thin-Plate Spline (TPS)	Visualizes shape changes between specimens [27]	Illustrates deformation patterns characteristic of groups

Experimental Protocol: Multivariate Analysis

• Shape Variable Extraction: Perform PCA on Procrustes coordinates to identify major shape axes
• Group Discrimination: Apply CVA/DFA to maximize separation between known groups
• Classification Testing: Use cross-validation to assess classification accuracy of identification models
• Shape Visualization: Generate TPS deformation grids to illustrate shape differences between groups

Visualization and Interpretation

The final phase translates statistical results into biologically meaningful interpretations, critical for identification research. Visualization techniques map statistical findings back to anatomical structures.

Experimental Protocol: Shape Visualization

• Thin-Plate Spline Visualization:
  • Generate deformation grids that warp from reference to target form
  • Display vectors of landmark displacement along shape axes
• Mean Shape Calculation: Compute and visualize mean shapes for each identified group
• Wireframe Graphs: Connect landmarks with lines to maintain anatomical context during visualization
• Statistical Mapping: Color-code morphological surfaces based on contribution to group differences

Biological Interpretation Framework:

• Anatomical Correlation: Relate statistical shape differences to specific anatomical structures
• Functional Implications: Interpret shape differences in context of functional adaptations
• Identification Markers: Identify specific morphological features that reliably discriminate groups
• Validation: Compare morphological groupings with independent data (genetic, ecological, geographic)

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Software Tools for Geometric Morphometric Analysis

Tool Name	Function	Application Context
tpsDig2 [27]	Landmark digitization	Primary tool for manual landmark placement on 2D images
tpsUtil [27]	Data management	Organizes landmark files; creates TPS file series
MorphoJ [27]	Statistical analysis	Performs Procrustes ANOVA, PCA, CVA, and other multivariate analyses
R (Momocs package) [27]	Outline analysis	Specialized for outline-based morphometrics; customizable analyses
ImageJ [27]	Image processing	Background removal; image standardization; preliminary measurements
morphVQ [2]	Automated phenotyping	Landmark-free analysis; captures comprehensive surface morphology

This workflow overview provides a comprehensive framework for implementing geometric morphometrics in identification research. The integrated pipeline from standardized image acquisition through biological interpretation ensures robust, reproducible shape analysis that can discriminate between biological groups with high precision. As geometric morphometrics continues to evolve, automated approaches like morphVQ [2] promise to expand analytical capabilities while reducing observer bias. The methodology outlined here serves as both a practical guide for researchers and a foundation for developing more sophisticated identification systems based on quantitative morphological analysis.

In geometric morphometrics (GMM), landmark-based methods quantify biological shape by capturing the Cartesian coordinates of anatomically corresponding points across specimens [29]. This approach has revolutionized shape analysis across biological disciplines, from taxonomy and systematics to ecology and evolution [30] [29]. The selection and precise placement of these landmarks are foundational to the validity of any subsequent analysis, as they directly influence the interpretation of shape variation and covariation [31] [30]. Within the specific context of identification research—whether for species discrimination, cultivar classification, or pathological diagnosis—the challenges are twofold: ensuring that landmarks represent biologically homologous structures and that their placement is highly repeatable within and between observers [31] [30]. This technical guide synthesizes current methodologies and empirical findings to provide robust strategies for navigating these challenges, thereby ensuring that geometric morphometric analyses yield reliable, reproducible, and biologically meaningful results for identification purposes.

Theoretical Foundations: Defining and Interpreting Homology

Types of Landmarks and Their Homological Basis

The theoretical underpinning of landmark-based morphometrics rests on the concept of homology, which can be interpreted differently depending on the landmark type [31] [29].

• Type I Landmarks are defined by the juxtaposition of distinct tissues or structures, such as the intersection of two sutures in a skull or the meeting point of major veins on a leaf. These represent the strongest case for secondary homology (similarity due to common ancestry) because they correspond to discrete, ontogenetically conserved anatomical loci [31].
• Type II Landmarks are defined by self-evident geometry, such as the apex of a tooth cusp or the tip of a leaf. While their homology is less rigid than Type I, they provide crucial information about the overall geometry of a structure and are often necessary for comprehensive shape description [31].
• Type III Landmarks are extremal points, such as the furthest point of a curvature or the endpoints of a structure's longest axis. These are often considered the least reliable for studies of secondary homology because their position can be influenced by the growth or displacement of surrounding tissues [31].
• Semi-Landmarks are points placed along curves and contours between defined landmarks to capture the outline geometry of structures lacking discrete homologous points [29]. They are essential for analyzing complex shapes but are considered "deficient" in terms of traditional homology, instead representing a framework for evaluating primary homology (raw similarity) [31] [29].

Table 1: Landmark Types and Their Homological Implications

Landmark Type	Definition	Basis for Homology	Strengths	Weaknesses
Type I	Juxtaposition of tissues	Secondary Homology (common ancestry)	High biological validity; precise and repeatable	Often limited in number
Type II	Maxima of curvature or other geometry	Secondary Homology	Captures overall geometry; more abundant	Less precise than Type I
Type III	Extremal points	Weakest for secondary homology	Allows quantification of outline	Highly susceptible to measurement error
Semi-Landmarks	Points along curves/contours	Primary Homology (raw similarity)	Enables analysis of complex outlines	Requires sliding procedures to minimize arbitrariness

The Homology-Recognizability Balance in Identification Research

For identification research, the strict requirement for secondary homology can sometimes be relaxed in favor of recognizable and repeatable landmarks [31]. The primary goal is often to achieve high discriminatory power between predefined groups rather than to infer deep evolutionary relationships. As noted in a comment on squamate reptile morphometrics, a defensible approach involves using recognizable and repeatable landmarks, provided researchers clearly define their configurations and the analytical purpose [31]. Semi-landmarks and related methods are particularly amenable to this purpose, as they efficiently capture overall shape for classification without requiring every point to be a direct product of common ancestry [31] [29].

Even with a sound theoretical framework, practical data acquisition introduces multiple sources of error that can compromise repeatability and, consequently, the validity of identification models. These errors can be substantial, sometimes explaining over 30% of the total variation in a dataset [30].

Figure 1: Workflow of measurement error sources in geometric morphometrics. Error from multiple stages compounds, impacting analytical results [30].

• Specimen Presentation: In 2D GM analyses, projecting 3D objects onto a 2D plane inevitably introduces distortion. The orientation of a specimen can displace landmark loci relative to their true position, an effect exacerbated if landmarks shift toward the edges of the camera field where lens distortion is greatest [30]. This is a critical consideration for isolated structures (e.g., teeth, seeds) that are difficult to orient consistently.
• Imaging Devices: The use of different imaging equipment (cameras, scanners) or even different lenses on the same camera can generate dissimilar morphological reconstructions. Variation in resolution, lens curvature, and magnification can all impact the precision with which anatomical loci can be identified and digitized [30].

• Interobserver Error: Different individuals digitizing the same specimen will inevitably place landmarks with some degree of variation. This error is influenced by the observer's experience, the clarity of the landmark definition, and the complexity of the structure [30].
• Intraobserver Error: The same observer will exhibit variation in landmark placement across different digitizing sessions. Factors such as fatigue, the number of specimens digitized in one session, and the subjective interpretation of ambiguous landmarks contribute to this error [30].

Table 2: Quantified Impact of Different Error Sources on Classification

Error Source	Impact on Landmark Precision	Impact on Species Classification	Mitigation Strategy
Interobserver	Greatest discrepancy in landmark coordinates	High impact on predicted group membership	Standardize and train digitizers; use clear protocols
Specimen Presentation	Significant discrepancy due to 2D projection	Greatest discrepancy in group membership	Standardize imaging angle and equipment
Imaging Device	Moderate discrepancy due to lens/resolution	Moderate impact on results	Use the same imaging equipment and settings
Intraobserver	Observable but generally lower discrepancy	Affects replicability of identifications	Limit session duration; randomize specimen order

Strategic Protocols for Enhancing Homology and Repeatability

A Protocol for Creating Useful Geometric Shape Metrics

A generalized protocol for developing synthetic shape metrics can enhance comparability across studies. The core of this protocol is to select two end-point mathematical geometries and perform a coordinate-point eigenshape analysis to define the vector between them [32].

• Define End-Point Geometries: Select two pure mathematical forms that represent the shape gradient of interest (e.g., a circle and a line to represent a "circularity" spectrum) [32].
• Generate the Shape Vector: Submit these two geometries to a coordinate-point eigenshape analysis. This creates a one-dimensional "theoretical morphospace" – a vector describing the transformation from one shape to the other [32].
• Project Specimens onto the Vector: Calculate scores for biological specimens along this shape vector. These scores function as a standardized, comparable metric of shape (e.g., geometric circularity) that is independent of any specific empirical dataset [32].
• Validation: Compare the scores from the geometric vector with those from an empirical morphospace derived from a sample of specimens to ensure the metric captures biologically meaningful variation [32].

This approach provides a universal toolkit for shape measurement, facilitating direct comparison of results across different studies and research groups [32].

Quantifying and Minimizing Measurement Error

Proactive error assessment and mitigation are essential for robust identification research.

• Conduct Replication Studies: To quantify error, replicate data acquisition for a subset of specimens. This should include re-imaging (to assess presentation and device error) and re-digitizing by the same and different observers (to assess intra- and interobserver error) [30].
• Standardize Procedures Rigorously:
  • Imaging: Use the same imaging equipment and settings for all specimens. For 2D analyses, develop a jig or standardized protocol to ensure identical specimen presentation [30].
  • Digitization: A single, well-trained individual should digitize all landmarks for a study to minimize interobserver error. If multiple digitizers are necessary, comprehensive training and a clear, written protocol are mandatory [30].
• Perform Statistical Analysis of Error: Use Procrustes ANOVA to partition total shape variance into components attributable to biological signal versus the various measurement error sources. This quantifies the signal-to-noise ratio in your data [30].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Geometric Morphometrics

Item	Function/Role in GMM	Technical Specifications & Considerations
High-Resolution Camera/Scanner	Projects 3D specimens onto 2D/3D digital surfaces.	Consistent resolution, lens quality (low distortion), and lighting are critical to minimize instrumental error [30].
Specimen Mounting Jig	Standardizes the orientation and position of specimens during imaging.	Crucial for minimizing methodological error from specimen presentation in 2D analyses [30].
Landmark Digitization Software	Enables the placement of landmarks on digital images to record Cartesian coordinates.	Software like tpsDig2, MorphoJ, or R packages (geomorph) are standard. Must handle both landmarks and semi-landmarks [29].
Semi-Landmark Sliding Algorithm	Minimizes the arbitrariness of semi-landmark placement by sliding them along tangents to curves.	An essential computational tool for analyzing outlines; algorithms minimize bending energy or Procrustes distance [29].
Procrustes Superimposition Algorithm	Standardizes landmark configurations by removing differences in size, position, and orientation.	The foundational statistical procedure for isolating "shape" for analysis; implemented in all major GMM software [29].

Geometric morphometrics (GM) has become the standard framework for quantifying and analyzing biological form in research areas ranging from evolutionary biology to medical entomology and drug development [33] [34]. This methodology employs Cartesian coordinates of anatomical landmarks to statistically analyze shape variation while retaining full geometric information throughout the analytical process. The power of GM lies in its ability to separate shape from size, location, and orientation, enabling researchers to test complex hypotheses about form variation and its relationship to genetic, developmental, and environmental factors [35] [34].

This guide provides an in-depth technical overview of three cornerstone tools in the geometric morphometrics workflow: TPSdig2 for data acquisition, MorphoJ for integrated analysis, and R-based packages for advanced programmable analysis. Framed within the context of identification research, this resource equips scientists with the knowledge to implement a complete GM pipeline from raw image data to statistical interpretation and visualization.

The Geometric Morphometrics Workflow

The analysis of shape using geometric morphometrics follows a structured pipeline that transforms raw images into quantifiable shape variables ready for statistical testing and biological interpretation [35] [34]. The foundational steps include:

• Landmarking: Digitizing anatomical loci on biological structures
• Procrustes Superimposition: Removing differences in position, scale, and orientation
• Statistical Analysis: Testing hypotheses about shape variation
• Visualization: Interpreting patterns of shape change

The following diagram illustrates this core workflow and how the primary software tools integrate within it:

Data Acquisition with TPSdig2

TPSdig2 is the standard software for digitizing landmarks and outlines from two-dimensional images, developed as part of the TPS series freely available for research and teaching [36]. This Windows application enables researchers to capture Cartesian coordinates from various image sources, including image files, scanners, or live video feeds. The program supports common image formats and video files (AVI and MOV), providing simple image enhancement operations to improve landmark visibility [36].

The software outputs data in the TPS file format, a plain ASCII format that can be edited or converted for use in other software. Beyond basic landmark coordinate capture, TPSdig2 can compute areas of enclosed regions, perimeters, and linear distances, making it versatile for various morphometric applications [36].

Practical Implementation for Identification Research

For identification research, consistent landmark placement is critical. Landmarks should be selected according to three key criteria: they must be present on all specimens, clearly defined, and biologically relevant [37]. In practice, researchers should:

• Define Landmark Protocol: Establish a fixed order for digitizing landmarks and maintain this order across all specimens [37]
• Use Image Enhancement: Utilize TPSdig2's brightness and contrast adjustments to clarify ambiguous structures
• Leverage Support Files: Prepare input files using tpsUtil (another TPS series program) for efficient batch processing [36]

The output TPS files contain both coordinate data and associated image filenames, creating an auditable trail from statistical results back to original images—an essential feature for validation in identification research [36].

Integrated Analysis with MorphoJ

MorphoJ is an integrated program package for geometric morphometric analysis designed for both 2D and 3D landmark data [38]. Written in Java, it provides a user-friendly platform for the most common types of GM analyses while maintaining robust statistical capabilities. The software is freely available under the Apache License and is distributed as self-contained packages for Windows, Mac OS, and Ubuntu Linux [38] [39].

Installation requires administrator privileges, and users may need to bypass operating system security warnings. For instance, on Mac OS, users must right-click the application and select "Open" twice to override gatekeeper restrictions [38]. The current version (1.08.02) includes a comprehensive user's guide accessible from the help menu.

Analytical Capabilities for Identification Research

MorphoJ provides a comprehensive suite of analyses specifically valuable for identification and diagnostics:

Table 1: Key Analytical Methods in MorphoJ for Identification Research

Analysis Type	Application in Identification Research	Key References
Procrustes Fit	Aligns landmark configurations by removing non-shape variation	[37]
Principal Component Analysis (PCA)	Identifies major patterns of shape variation in sample	[37] [34]
Canonical Variate Analysis (CVA)	Maximizes separation between pre-defined groups	[38]
Linear Discriminant Analysis	Classifies unknown specimens into established groups	[38]
Two-Block Partial Least Squares	Analyzes covariation between two sets of variables	[38] [35]
Regression Analysis	Assesses relationship between shape and continuous variables	[38]

MorphoJ is particularly valuable for analyzing object symmetry, a common feature in biological structures, through the separation of symmetric and asymmetric components of shape variation [38] [34]. This capability enables researchers to distinguish between directional asymmetry (potentially informative for identification) and fluctuating asymmetry (often representing developmental noise) [34].

Experimental Protocol: Species Discrimination Analysis

For identification research focused on discriminating between species or populations, the following protocol provides a standardized approach using MorphoJ:

• Data Preparation: Import TPS files from TPSdig2 or a compatible coordinate file
• Procrustes Fit: Perform Generalized Procrustes Analysis to align all specimens
• Outlier Detection: Use built-in tools to identify potential landmarking errors
• Principal Components Analysis: Explore major patterns of shape variation without a priori groupings
• Canonical Variate Analysis: Maximize separation between predefined groups
• Cross-Validation: Assess classification accuracy using discriminant function analysis
• Visualization: Interpret shape changes using vector plots, deformation grids, or color maps

This workflow was effectively demonstrated in an analysis of Disney characters, where MorphoJ successfully discriminated between "good" and "evil" characters based on facial morphology, with statistical significance confirmed using NPMANOVA (F = 9.12, P = 0.0001) [37].

Programmable Analysis with R Packages

The R Ecosystem for Geometric Morphometrics

The R environment provides a comprehensive, programmable platform for geometric morphometric analysis through specialized packages that extend capabilities beyond point-and-click software [33] [40]. This ecosystem offers greater analytical flexibility, reproducibility, and access to cutting-edge methods. The key packages include:

• geomorph: Provides a comprehensive pipeline for GM analysis, from Procrustes alignment to advanced statistical tests [40]
• Morpho: Offers tools for shape analysis and surface manipulations, particularly valuable for 3D data [41]
• Momocs: Specializes in outline analysis using Fourier methods [33]
• morphospace: A newer package specifically designed for building and visualizing ordinations of shape data [33]

These packages integrate with R's extensive statistical and graphical capabilities, enabling customized analyses and publication-quality visualizations [33] [40].

Advanced Workflow for Comparative Analysis

The programmable nature of R facilitates complex analytical workflows that incorporate phylogenetic information, ecological variables, and theoretical models:

Experimental Protocol: Phylogenetic Morphospace Analysis

For identification research in an evolutionary context, the following R-based protocol enables analysis of shape variation while accounting for phylogenetic relationships:

• Data Input: Import landmark data using geomorph::readland.shapes() or similar functions
• Procrustes Alignment: Perform Generalized Procrustes Analysis using geomorph::gpagen()
• Phylogenetic Correction: Incorporate phylogenetic trees using geomorph::procD.pgls() or mvMORPH::mvgls()
• Morphospace Construction: Build ordinations emphasizing phylogenetic signal using morphospace::mspace()
• Visualization: Project phylogenetic trees into morphospace using phytools::phylomorphospace()
• Hypothesis Testing: Evaluate evolutionary models using mvMORPH::mvgls()

This approach allows researchers to distinguish between shape variation resulting from phylogenetic history versus other factors, providing deeper insights into evolutionary patterns relevant to taxonomic identification [33] [35].

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Software Tools for Geometric Morphometrics Research

Tool Name	Function	Application Context
TPSdig2	Digitizes landmarks and outlines from images	Primary data acquisition from 2D images [36]
ImageJ	Image processing and basic landmarking	Alternative for initial data collection [37] [34]
MorphoJ	Integrated morphometric analysis	User-friendly statistical analysis and visualization [38]
geomorph R package	Programmable shape analysis	Comprehensive GM analysis in statistical environment [40]
Morpho R package	Shape analysis and surface manipulation	Handling 3D data and surface meshes [41]
morphospace R package	Morphospace building and visualization	Creating and enhancing ordination plots [33]
PAST	Palaeontological statistics	Additional statistical analysis and visualization [37]
StereoMorph R package	3D data collection and reconstruction	Capturing and processing 3D landmark data [36]

Comparative Analysis of Software Tools

Each primary software tool offers distinct advantages for different stages of the geometric morphometrics pipeline:

Table 3: Software Tool Comparison for Geometric Morphometric Analysis

Feature	TPSdig2	MorphoJ	R Packages (geomorph/morphospace)
Primary Function	Data acquisition	Integrated analysis	Programmable analysis
Data Input	Image files, scanner, video	TPS, NTS, RAW	Multiple formats (TPS, PLY, CSV)
Key Analyses	Coordinate capture, measurements	Procrustes, PCA, CVA, regression	Advanced stats, phylogenetics, custom analyses
Visualization	Landmark overlays	Scatterplots, deformation grids	Publication-quality customizable graphics
Symmetry Analysis	Limited	Comprehensive object symmetry	Comprehensive (2D/3D)
Learning Curve	Low	Moderate	Steep
Reproducibility	Low (GUI-based)	Moderate (GUI-based)	High (script-based)
Best Application	Initial data collection	Standardized analysis	Complex, novel, or specialized analyses

The integrated use of TPSdig2, MorphoJ, and R-based packages provides researchers with a complete toolkit for geometric morphometric analysis in identification research. TPSdig2 offers specialized data acquisition capabilities, MorphoJ delivers user-friendly integrated analysis, and R packages provide virtually unlimited analytical flexibility. Mastery of these complementary tools enables researchers to address complex questions about shape variation with statistical rigor and biological relevance, advancing applications in taxonomy, systematics, and morphological diagnostics.

The direct nose-to-brain drug delivery pathway has gained significant interest in recent years as a promising, non-invasive method to deliver therapeutic agents directly to the central nervous system (CNS) via the olfactory nerves, effectively bypassing the blood-brain barrier [6]. This route is particularly valuable for treating neurodegenerative diseases, where the blood-brain barrier normally severely limits drug bioavailability [6]. However, the anatomical variability of the nasal cavity between individuals presents a substantial challenge, as it significantly impacts nasal airflow dynamics and intranasal drug deposition patterns [6]. Traditional approaches using average anatomical models or two-dimensional measurements have proven insufficient for accurately predicting deposition outcomes across diverse populations [6]. This case study explores how geometric morphometrics, a mathematical and statistical method for quantifying three-dimensional shape variation, can identify distinct nasal cavity morphotypes to advance personalized nose-to-brain drug delivery strategies [6].

The Role of Geometric Morphometrics in Shape Analysis

Geometric morphometrics provides a robust framework for quantitatively assessing complex biological shapes in three dimensions [6]. Unlike traditional measurement approaches that focus on linear distances or angles, geometric morphometrics captures the full geometric configuration of anatomical structures using landmarks and semi-landmarks [6]. This methodology preserves the spatial relationships between anatomical points throughout analysis, enabling researchers to visualize and statistically analyze shape variation across populations [6].

In the context of nasal cavity analysis, geometric morphometrics moves beyond oversimplified average models to capture the continuous spectrum of anatomical variation present in human populations [6]. By applying statistical techniques including Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA) and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to landmark data, researchers can identify major axes of shape variation and classify individuals into distinct morphological clusters [6]. This approach offers a more nuanced understanding of how anatomical differences may influence drug delivery efficiency to the olfactory region.

Methodology for Nasal Cavity Morphotype Analysis

Study Population and Image Acquisition

The foundational study for this case study utilized cranioencephalic computed tomography (CT) scans from 78 patients admitted to the emergency room for non-ENT diseases [6]. The study population included 42 females and 35 males (with no demographic data available for one adult patient), with a mean age of 53.9 years (range 15-85 years) [6]. Patients with known rhinologic history or major nasal pathologies were excluded from the study [6]. From these 78 patients, a total of 151 unilateral nasal cavities were ultimately analyzed after excluding cavities with nasal probes [6].

Table 1: Study Population Characteristics

Characteristic	Value
Total Patients	78
Female	42
Male	35
Mean Age	53.9 years
Age Range	15-85 years
Total Nasal Cavities Analyzed	151

Image Processing and Region of Interest Definition

CT scans were imported into ITK-SNAP (version 3.8.0) in DICOM format, and semi-automatic segmentation was performed to obtain 3D meshes of the nasal cavities [6]. The segmentation used manual intensity threshold adjustment to distinguish the nasal cavity lumen from surrounding tissues [6]. The resulting segmented volumes were exported in STL format, with paranasal sinuses excluded from segmentation as they are not directly involved in the passage of therapeutic particles targeting the olfactory region [6].

Using CAO tools in StarCCM+ (version 2310), each 3D nasal cavity mesh was cleaned to remove segmentation artifacts and separated into unilateral cavities [6]. To ensure side-to-side comparability, left nasal cavities were mirrored along the sagittal plane to align with right nasal cavities [6]. The region of interest (ROI) was defined as extending from the plane crossing the plica nasi and the nasal valve (the narrowest region of the nasal cavity) up to the anterior part of the olfactory region [6]. The vestibule was excluded from analysis since it is primarily occupied by the delivery nozzle and does not influence particle trajectories within the nasal cavity proper [6].

Landmark Digitization and Geometric Morphometric Analysis

Using Viewbox 4.0 software, researchers placed ten fixed anatomical landmarks on a template unilateral nasal cavity model in homologous regions present in all patient specimens [6]. A total of 200 semi-landmarks were distributed across the ROI of the template model, organized into two patches to ensure optimal coverage [6]. These semi-landmarks were projected from the template to each patient model using Thin Plate Spline (TPS) warping with bending energy minimization, allowing semi-landmarks to slide tangentially along the surface to ensure optimal homology across specimens while minimizing distortion [6].

All landmark coordinates were standardized via Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA) to remove variation due to translation, rotation, and scale [6]. The aligned landmark coordinates were then analyzed using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to identify dominant axes of shape variation [6]. Principal components representing most of the variability were selected using the Elbow method [6]. To classify morphological variations, Hierarchical Clustering on Principal Components (HCPC) was performed on the selected PCs using the FactoMineR package in R (version 4.4.3) [6]. The number of clusters was determined automatically by analyzing gains in cluster inertia to identify the partition that best reflected the underlying data structure, with verification using the NbClust package [6].

Diagram Title: Geometric Morphometrics Workflow

Statistical Analysis and Validation

Morphological differences between identified clusters were statistically evaluated using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to identify landmarks that showed statistically significant differences between at least two clusters across all axes [6]. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on each spatial coordinate to refine the MANOVA results, followed by post-hoc Tukey's tests on pairs of clusters to identify significant inter-cluster differences per landmark and axis [6].

To assess landmark digitization reliability, a subset of fixed landmarks was manually placed twice by the same operator and once by a second operator on 20 models [6]. Lin's Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC) was used to quantify intra- and inter-operator agreement, confirming good reliability of the method [6]. A Procrustes ANOVA test was conducted on the GPA-aligned coordinates of left and right nasal cavities to test for potential bilateral asymmetry of shape [6]. Sample size sufficiency for PCA stability was confirmed through resampling analysis with randomly selected subsets of increasing size [6].

Key Findings: Identification of Three Distinct Morphotypes

The geometric morphometric analysis revealed three distinct morphological clusters of the nasal cavity region that influences olfactory accessibility [6]. The variations were statistically significant primarily in the X and Y axes, with minimal variation in the Z axis [6].

Table 2: Characteristics of Identified Nasal Cavity Morphotypes

Cluster	Prevalence	Morphological Characteristics	Predicted Olfactory Accessibility
Cluster 1	31.5% of patients had at least one cavity	Broader anterior cavity with shallower turbinate onset	Likely improved olfactory accessibility
Cluster 2	Intermediate prevalence	Intermediate morphological characteristics	Moderate olfactory accessibility
Cluster 3	Remaining patient population	Narrower cavity with deeper turbinates	Potentially limited olfactory accessibility

Cluster 1, characterized by a broader anterior cavity with shallower turbinate onset, demonstrated anatomical features likely to improve olfactory accessibility [6]. This morphotype was present in at least one nasal cavity in 31.5% of patients [6]. In contrast, Cluster 3 presented with a narrower nasal cavity structure and deeper turbinates, creating anatomical conditions that may potentially limit drug accessibility to the olfactory region [6]. Cluster 2 exhibited intermediate characteristics between these two extremes [6].

These findings demonstrate that systematic variation in nasal cavity anatomy significantly influences the potential pathway for drug particles targeting the olfactory region [6]. The identification of these distinct morphotypes provides a foundation for developing personalized nose-to-brain drug delivery approaches tailored to individual anatomical variations [6].

Research Reagent Solutions and Essential Materials

Table 3: Essential Research Materials and Analytical Tools for Nasal Cavity Morphometric Analysis

Item Name	Function/Application	Specification/Version
ITK-SNAP	Semi-automatic segmentation of CT scans	Version 3.8.0
StarCCM+ CAO Tools	Mesh cleaning and preprocessing	Version 2310
Viewbox 4.0	Landmark digitization and placement	Version 4.0
R Statistical Software	Statistical analysis and clustering	Version 4.4.3
geomorph R Package	Geometric morphometric analysis	-
FactoMineR Package	Hierarchical clustering on principal components	-
NbClust Package	Determining optimal number of clusters	-
Thin Plate Spline (TPS)	Landmark projection and warping	-
Generalized Procrustes Analysis	Shape alignment and standardization	-
Principal Component Analysis	Identifying dominant shape variations	-

Implications for Personalized Nose-to-Brain Drug Delivery

The identification of distinct nasal cavity morphotypes has significant implications for advancing personalized medicine approaches to nose-to-brain drug delivery [6]. By recognizing that nearly one-third of the population (those with Cluster 1 morphology) may have inherently better olfactory accessibility, researchers and pharmaceutical developers can begin to tailor delivery systems and dosage forms to individual anatomical characteristics [6].

This morphological stratification enables more targeted computational fluid dynamics (CFD) studies that can simulate drug particle deposition patterns specific to each morphotype, rather than relying on generic nasal models [6]. Such approaches could lead to the development of stratified drug delivery devices optimized for different anatomical clusters, potentially improving therapeutic outcomes for neurological disorders treated via the nose-to-brain route [6].

Furthermore, the geometric morphometrics methodology established in this research provides a framework for future studies exploring potential correlations between nasal morphology and factors such as gender, age, ethnic origin, or climatic adaptation [6]. As noted in the study, such variability could be shaped by a combination of these factors, though the specific relationships require further investigation [6].

This case study demonstrates the powerful application of geometric morphometric shape analysis for identifying distinct nasal cavity morphotypes that influence olfactory region accessibility [6]. The methodology, combining advanced imaging, landmark-based shape analysis, and multivariate statistics, successfully identified three morphological clusters with significant implications for nose-to-brain drug delivery [6].

The findings represent a practical step toward tailoring nose-to-brain drug delivery strategies in alignment with personalized medicine principles [6]. By accounting for systematic anatomical variations between individuals, researchers and pharmaceutical developers can optimize drug targeting strategies to improve delivery efficiency to the olfactory region and ultimately enhance therapeutic outcomes for central nervous system disorders [6]. Future work in this field should focus on correlating these morphological clusters with actual drug deposition patterns through computational fluid dynamics studies and in vitro models [6].

In preclinical biomedical research, the zebrafish (Danio rerio) has emerged as a pivotal vertebrate model organism that effectively bridges the gap between in vitro studies and mammalian systems. A fundamental challenge in leveraging this model, however, lies in accurately accounting for sex as a biological variable (SABV) that significantly influences experimental outcomes. Sex is a critical variable influencing physiology, behavior, and pharmacological responses across species [42]. For many years, sex was often overlooked as a biological variable in preclinical studies, with experiments frequently conducted using mixed or unsexed populations. However, growing evidence shows that sex-specific differences can significantly shape biological processes and drug responses [42]. Neglecting sex as a biological variable can significantly distort experimental outcomes, mask sex-specific effects of therapeutic compounds, and ultimately limit the translational value of preclinical data [42].

Traditional methods for sexing zebrafish rely on subjective assessment of secondary sexual characteristics, including body coloration, abdominal shape, and the presence of a genital papilla [42]. These approaches, however, are highly dependent on the observer's experience and are not always reliable, particularly for immature adults or certain laboratory strains. To address these limitations, geometric morphometrics (GM) has been introduced as a quantitative, high-precision alternative for sex discrimination in zebrafish [43]. This case study explores the implementation of geometric morphometrics shape analysis for automated sex estimation in zebrafish, detailing its methodology, validation, and critical importance for enhancing the reproducibility and predictive power of preclinical models in drug discovery.

Geometric Morphometrics: A Quantitative Framework for Sex Discrimination

Geometric morphometrics represents a sophisticated statistical approach that analyzes the shape of anatomical structures using specific, defined landmarks [43]. Unlike traditional morphometrics, which relies on linear measurements and ratios, GM captures the complete geometry of a structure by recording the Cartesian coordinates of homologous landmarks and preserving this geometric information throughout statistical analysis [43]. This method allows for the detection of subtle morphological differences between male and female zebrafish with high precision, achieving demonstrated accuracy rates of 95–100% in sexing adult zebrafish [42].

The application of GM to zebrafish sex discrimination is quantitatively grounded in the work of Duff et al. (2019), who established a rigorous protocol for classifying sex based on overall body geometry [43]. Their research demonstrated that males and females clearly diverge along a single canonical variate, with jackknife testing revealing 100% correct assignment of sex for models both including and excluding the abdominal region [43]. Analysis of body geometry demonstrated specific dimorphic patterns: males typically possess a longer caudal peduncle, a more streamlined ventral region, and slightly more inferior placement of eyes than females [43]. Based on these distinct shape variables, the researchers developed a logistic regression equation using the ratio of ventral caudal peduncle length to standard length, providing a reliable and objective method for sex discrimination in zebrafish [43].

Table 1: Key Shape Differences Between Male and Female Zebrafish Identified Through Geometric Morphometrics

Body Region	Male Characteristics	Female Characteristics
Caudal Peduncle	Longer and more slender	Shorter and deeper
Ventral Body Region	More streamlined and concave	Rounded and convex, especially when gravid
Eye Position	Slightly more inferior placement	Slightly more superior placement
Overall Body Shape	More elongated and torpedo-shaped	Deeper-bodied and more robust

Experimental Protocol for Geometric Morphometrics Sex Estimation

Implementing geometric morphometrics for sex estimation requires careful attention to specimen preparation, data acquisition, and statistical analysis. The following protocol outlines the key methodological steps established by Duff et al. and optimized for high-throughput preclinical environments.

Specimen Preparation and Image Acquisition

• Animal Selection: Utilize adult zebrafish aged 12-24 months to ensure full sexual maturation and stable morphology. The study by Duff et al. used animals from a wild-type AB strain, but the method is applicable to common laboratory strains [43].
• Image Capture: Position each fish in a standardized orientation for photography. Duff et al. used the left lateral view of adult zebrafish. Ensure consistent lighting and image resolution across all samples. A scale bar must be included in each image for calibration [43].
• Anesthesia: Mild anesthesia (e.g., tricaine methanesulfonate) is recommended to immobilize fish during imaging without altering body shape, ensuring consistent landmark placement.

Landmark Digitization and Data Processing

• Landmark Selection: Precisely place 10 homologous landmarks on the left lateral view of each zebrafish image. Duff et al. tested two models: one including the abdominal region and one excluding it, with both achieving perfect sex assignment [43].
• Procrustes Superimposition: This critical step removes the effects of size, position, and orientation from the landmark data. The raw landmark coordinates are translated, scaled, and rotated to optimize the fit between configurations, allowing for the analysis of shape variation independent of these confounding factors [43].
• Statistical Analysis: Subject the Procrustes-aligned coordinates to multivariate statistical analysis. Canonical Variate Analysis (CVA) is particularly effective for maximizing separation between predefined groups (males and females). The strength of the classification algorithm should be validated using jackknife (leave-one-out) cross-validation [43].

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions for Geometric Morphometrics Sex Estimation

Item/Solution	Function/Application	Specification Notes
Wild-type AB Zebrafish	Experimental subjects for morphometric analysis	Aged 12-24 months for stable adult morphology [43]
Tricaine Methanesulfonate (MS-222)	Anesthetic for humane immobilization during imaging	Standard concentration for zebrafish (e.g., 100-150 mg/L)
Image Acquisition System	High-resolution digital photography	Consistent magnification, lighting, and inclusion of scale bar
Landmark Digitization Software	Precise placement of homologous landmarks	TpsDig2, MorphoJ, or similar geometric morphometrics software
Statistical Analysis Package	Multivariate shape analysis and classification	R with geomorph package, PAST, or comparable software

The following diagram illustrates the complete experimental workflow for automated sex estimation in zebrafish, from specimen preparation to final classification:

Biological Basis of Sexual Dimorphism in Zebrafish

The morphological differences quantified by geometric morphometrics are underpinned by profound physiological and molecular dimorphisms between male and female zebrafish. Understanding this biological context is essential for appreciating why sex is a critical variable in preclinical research.

Neurobehavioral and Physiological Dimorphisms

Sexual dimorphism in zebrafish extends beyond external appearance, influencing brain organization, neurochemistry, and behavior, factors that directly affect how drugs work [42]. Males typically show higher exploratory behavior, aggression, and boldness, whereas females demonstrate stronger social cohesion and enhanced memory acquisition in some cognitive tasks [42]. These behavioral differences correspond with neurochemical variations: females often exhibit higher dopamine concentrations in specific brain regions, while serotonin levels and metabolites differ significantly between sexes [42]. Furthermore, anxiety-like behaviors illustrate how sex shapes responses in preclinical studies. Females often display heightened anxiety levels in standard assays such as the novel tank test, spending more time at the bottom and showing reduced exploratory activity compared with males [42].

Hepatic and Metabolic Differences

Recent proteomic analyses have revealed extensive sexual dimorphism at the molecular level, particularly in the liver. A 2025 study identified 3695 protein groups in the zebrafish liver, with Principal Component Analysis showing clear separation between sexes in the first principal component [44]. Among these, 404 protein groups exhibited statistically significant differences in abundance, with 217 and 187 being more abundant in females and males, respectively [44]. Female livers showed higher levels of proteins involved in protein synthesis, including ribosomal proteins, aligning with the elevated demand for vitellogenin production during oogenesis [44]. In contrast, male liver protein abundances were higher in energy-producing biochemical pathways, such as the TCA cycle, β-oxidation, and glycolysis [44]. Significant sex differences were also observed in proteins related to drug metabolism, which has crucial implications for toxicological and pharmacological research [44].

The following diagram summarizes the key dimorphic traits and their implications for drug discovery:

Applications and Best Practices in Preclinical Models

The integration of automated sex estimation into zebrafish-based preclinical workflows addresses fundamental challenges in drug discovery and development, where traditional approaches require over a decade and cost billions of dollars, with a staggering 90% failure rate [45].

Enhancing Drug Discovery and Validation

In the context of AI-driven drug discovery, where computational platforms generate unprecedented numbers of candidate molecules, zebrafish offer a whole-organism approach compatible with high-throughput screening for target validation, hit-to-lead optimization, and lead refining by assessing efficacy and toxicity profiles [45]. Zebrafish help validate and prioritize targets and compounds discovered by AI before moving to costly mammalian models [45]. However, the predictive power of these screens depends critically on controlling for biological variables, with sex being among the most significant. This is particularly crucial for neurological disease models, where zebrafish are highly valuable due to their considerable genetic homology with humans—over 80% of human disease-associated genes have zebrafish orthologs [46]. The core brain structures and neurotransmitters show high functional similarity between zebrafish and human brains [46].

Best Practices for Incorporating Sex as a Biological Variable

To harness the full predictive potential of zebrafish models, sex must be integrated systematically throughout experimental design and analysis [42]:

• Rigorous Sex Identification: Implement geometric morphometrics or other objective methods for accurate sex determination rather than relying on subjective assessment alone [42].
• Balanced Group Allocation: Ensure both sexes are included in pharmacological testing in approximately equal numbers, and allocate them balanced across experimental groups to avoid confounding [42].
• Sex-Specific Analysis: Analyze data separately by sex to uncover sex-specific trends in efficacy, toxicity, and metabolic processing [42].
• Standardized Reporting: Include detailed information on sex distribution, identification methods, and sex-specific results in publications to facilitate reproducibility and cross-study comparison [42].
• Consideration of Developmental Stage: Account for hormonal cycles and developmental stages in experimental timing, as fluctuations can significantly affect results [42].

Automated sex estimation using geometric morphometrics represents a significant methodological advancement in zebrafish preclinical research. By providing a quantitative, high-throughput, and objective means of sex discrimination, this approach directly addresses the critical need to account for sex as a biological variable in drug discovery pipelines. The high classification accuracy of this method, coupled with its ability to detect subtle morphological differences, makes it an indispensable tool for improving the reproducibility, predictive validity, and translational value of zebrafish models. As the pharmaceutical industry continues to embrace innovative approaches like AI-driven drug discovery and high-throughput phenotypic screening, integrating robust sex determination protocols will be essential for reducing attrition rates and delivering safer, more effective therapeutics for all patients.

Taxonomic uncertainty presents a significant challenge in agricultural biosecurity and integrated pest management. Morphologically similar insect species, or cryptic species complexes, often exhibit distinct ecological roles, host preferences, and pesticide resistance profiles, making accurate identification critical for effective control strategies [47] [48]. Traditional morphological identification frequently fails to distinguish these subtle interspecific differences, particularly in groups with limited diagnostic characteristics or significant intraspecific variation.

Geometric morphometrics (GM) has emerged as a powerful complementary tool for taxonomic resolution, enabling quantitative analysis of shape variation using multivariate statistics. This case study examines the application of landmark-based GM to resolve taxonomic uncertainties across multiple agriculturally significant insect groups. By quantifying subtle shape differences in key morphological structures, GM provides a reproducible, cost-effective framework for species delimitation that enhances traditional taxonomy and supports robust biosecurity decision-making [49] [50].

Methodological Framework

Core Principles of Geometric Morphometrics

Geometric morphometrics analyzes the geometric properties of biological structures while controlling for the effects of size, position, and orientation. Unlike traditional morphometrics, which relies on linear measurements, GM preserves the geometric relationships among landmarks throughout statistical analysis, allowing for visualization of shape changes and more powerful discrimination between taxa [49].

The methodological workflow follows a standardized sequence: (1) image acquisition and preparation; (2) landmark digitization; (3) Procrustes superimposition to remove non-shape variation; (4) multivariate statistical analysis; and (5) visualization and interpretation of results.

Experimental Protocol

Specimen Selection and Imaging: High-resolution images of taxonomically verified specimens form the foundation of GM analysis. Studies consistently emphasize the critical importance of image quality and standardized imaging protocols. For example, research on Sitophilus weevils utilized 120 specimens representing three species, with images captured under consistent magnification and lighting conditions [48]. Similarly, studies on Tetropium beetles sourced images from verified databases like the USDA's ImageID system and enhanced them through processing software to improve structural visibility [50].

Landmark Digitization: Landmarks are biologically homologous points that can be reliably identified across all specimens. The selection of landmark type and number depends on the morphological structure being analyzed. Table 1 summarizes landmark configurations used in recent pest identification studies.

Table 1: Landmark Configurations in Recent GM Studies of Insect Pests

Insect Group	Species Studied	Morphological Structure	Number of Landmarks	Reference
Sarcophagidae	9 Sarcophaga species	Wings	15	[51]
Thrips	8 Thrips species	Head	11	[47]
Thrips	8 Thrips species	Thorax (setae positions)	10	[47]
Leaf-footed bugs	11 Acanthocephala species	Pronotum	40	[49]
Sitophilus weevils	3 Sitophilus species	Dorsal/ventral views	53	[48]

Software and Statistical Analysis: The GM workflow employs specialized software packages for different analytical stages. TpsDig2 is widely used for landmark digitization, while MorphoJ and the geomorph package in R implement Procrustes superimposition and multivariate statistics [47] [49] [48]. Key analytical steps include:

• Procrustes Fit: Superimposes landmark configurations to extract pure shape variables [51]
• Principal Component Analysis (PCA): Identifies major axes of shape variation within the sample [49]
• Discriminant Function Analysis (DFA): Maximizes separation between predefined groups and tests classification accuracy [48]
• Procrustes ANOVA: Tests for significant shape differences between groups [47]

Figure 1: Geometric Morphometrics Workflow. The process begins with specimen collection and progresses through image acquisition, landmark digitization, Procrustes superimposition to remove non-shape variation, multivariate statistical analysis, and finally visualization and interpretation of results.

Case Studies in Agricultural Pest Identification

Stored Product Pests: Sitophilus Weevils

Quantitative morphometric analysis of Sitophilus species demonstrated the efficacy of integrated traditional and landmark-based methods for distinguishing three economically significant storage pests: S. oryzae, S. zeamais, and S. granarius [48]. Researchers analyzed 120 specimens using 53 homologous landmarks from dorsal and ventral views, applying Procrustes superimposition followed by PCA, canonical variate analysis (CVA), and discriminant function analysis (DFA).

The study revealed significant sexual dimorphism, with males consistently larger and possessing longer appendages and rostra, particularly in S. oryzae [48]. DFA achieved high classification accuracy, validating the discriminatory power of combined traditional and geometric traits, despite slight overlap between S. oryzae and S. zeamais. The morphological variation corresponded to ecological functions and reproductive roles, with S. oryzae females showing the greatest size variation [48].

Invasive Fruit Flies: Bactrocera invadens

Geometric morphometrics of wing shape revealed significant population-level variations in Bactrocera invadens across four agro-ecological zones in Ghana [52]. Analysis of 706 right wings identified the junction of vein R1 and the costal vein as the principal wing feature accounting for 23.24% of observed variability.

Procrustes ANOVA and Partial Least Squares (PLS) confirmed significant variations among all four populations, potentially indicating local adaptation to environmental conditions [52]. These findings have important implications for pest control strategies, suggesting that population-specific approaches may be necessary for effective management.

Quarantine-Significant Thrips

Geometric morphometrics of head and thorax shapes successfully differentiated between invasive and non-invasive quarantine-significant thrips species [47]. Analysis of eight Thrips species using 11 head landmarks and 10 thoracic landmarks revealed statistically significant differences in head morphology and setal insertion points on the mesothorax and metathorax.

Principal component analysis accounted for over 73% of total head shape variation, with T. australis and T. angusticeps identified as the most morphologically distinct species in head shape [47]. Thoracic morphology showed greatest divergence in T. nigropilosus, T. obscuratus, and T. hawaiiensis. The complementary nature of head and thoracic landmarks enhanced discrimination power for taxa challenging to distinguish using traditional taxonomy [47].

Flesh Flies: Sarcophagidae

Wing landmark-based geometric morphometrics effectively differentiated among seven forensically important Sarcophaga species using 15 landmarks on 80 wings [51]. The method proved particularly valuable for this challenging family where morphological differences are subtle and DNA is often limited in forensic samples.

Discriminant analysis based on Mahalanobis and Procrustes distances demonstrated effective species separation, representing significant progress in expedited identification of Sarcophaga species [51]. The speed, affordability, and user-friendly nature of wing landmark-based GM enhances the robustness of Sarcophagidae analyses in forensic contexts.

Table 2: Statistical Results from GM Studies of Insect Pests

Study	Statistical Test	Key Results	Significance
Thrips [47]	Procrustes ANOVA	F = 7.89, p < 0.0001	Significant head shape differences among species
Leaf-footed bugs [49]	Principal Component Analysis	PC1 = 37.28%, PC2 = 19.90%	67% total shape variation in first three PCs
Sitophilus weevils [48]	Discriminant Function Analysis	High classification accuracy	Validated discriminatory power of combined methods
Tetropium beetles [50]	Geometric Morphometrics	Effective species differentiation	Despite some overlap between closely related species

Essential Research Reagents and Tools

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Geometric Morphometrics

Item	Function	Specific Examples
Imaging Systems	High-resolution specimen documentation	LEICA DFC450 camera with LEICA M205C stereomicroscope [51]; Multifocus imaging for complete depth of field [51]
Digitization Software	Landmark coordinate acquisition	TpsDig2 v2.17 [47] [49]; tpsUTIL64, tpsRELW32, and tpsDIG32 [51]
Morphometric Analysis Platforms	Statistical shape analysis	MorphoJ v1.06d-1.08.01 [51] [47] [49]; geomorph package in R [47] [48]
Image Processing Software	Image enhancement and standardization	Adobe Photoshop [47] [50]; Contrast and sharpness adjustment for landmark clarity [50]
Specimen Preparation Materials	Standardized specimen preservation	Slide-mounting with glycerin [51]; 70% ethanol preservation [51]

Discussion

Integration with Traditional Taxonomy and Molecular Methods

Geometric morphometrics serves as a bridge between traditional morphological identification and molecular approaches, offering a cost-effective, reproducible method that captures phenotypic plasticity often undetectable through genetic analysis alone [48]. While GM requires specialist knowledge for proper landmark selection and statistical interpretation, it demands less expertise than traditional taxonomy for routine identifications once validated protocols are established [50].

The complementary nature of GM is particularly valuable for routine screening at ports of entry, where rapid decisions are necessary, and molecular methods may be too time-consuming or expensive [47] [49]. For example, in USDA-APHIS-PPQ operations, GM has enhanced identification capabilities for frequently intercepted taxa like Thrips and Tetropium species [47] [50].

Implications for Pest Management and Biosecurity

The application of GM to pest identification has direct implications for agricultural biosecurity and management strategies. By enabling accurate discrimination of cryptic species with different host preferences, pest status, and insecticide resistance, GM supports more targeted and effective control measures [52] [48].

Population-level variations detected through GM, as demonstrated in Bactrocera invadens, may reflect local adaptations to environmental conditions or control measures, informing region-specific management approaches [52]. Similarly, the ability to distinguish native from exotic species, as shown in Tetropium studies, enhances quarantine decision-making at ports of entry [50].

Figure 2: GM Integration with Complementary Approaches. Geometric morphometrics connects traditional taxonomy and molecular methods, contributing to biosecurity enhancement through species discrimination, improved pest management through population monitoring, and ecological research through adaptation studies.

Geometric morphometrics provides a powerful, accessible methodology for resolving taxonomic uncertainties in agriculturally significant insect pests. The case studies presented demonstrate consistent success across diverse taxa—from stored product weevils to invasive fruit flies and quarantine-significant thrips—in discriminating morphologically similar species and detecting population-level variations.

The standardized protocols, essential research tools, and statistical frameworks outlined in this study offer researchers a comprehensive toolkit for implementing GM in pest identification contexts. As global trade increases biosecurity risks and climate change alters pest distributions, the integration of geometric morphometrics with traditional and molecular approaches will play an increasingly vital role in safeguarding agricultural systems and enhancing food security worldwide. Future research directions should focus on expanding landmark databases to encompass broader geographic and ecological diversity, developing automated landmarking systems to increase throughput, and strengthening integration with genomic approaches for a more comprehensive understanding of pest diversity and evolution.

Navigating Challenges: Ensuring Accuracy and Efficiency in Your GM Workflow

Geometric morphometrics, the quantitative analysis of biological shape, has established itself as a fundamental methodology in evolutionary biology, palaeontology, and increasingly in biomedical research. Traditional approaches have relied heavily on the manual placement of anatomical landmarks—discrete, homologous points that serve as the basis for quantifying and comparing shapes. While effective, this method presents significant bottlenecks: it is time-consuming, requires substantial anatomical expertise, and is susceptible to operator bias that can compromise reproducibility [53]. Furthermore, the dependency on homology limits comparisons across phylogenetically disparate taxa, as the number of identifiable homologous points diminishes considerably [53].

The increasing accessibility of high-resolution 3D imaging technologies, such as micro-computed tomography (µCT), has generated vast datasets of anatomical structures. To fully leverage this potential, the field requires more efficient, scalable, and objective analytical techniques [53] [54]. This whitepaper details the emergence of automated and landmark-free morphometric methods, which aim to overcome these longstanding limitations. Framed within the context of identification research—where precise, high-throughput phenotypic characterization is paramount—we explore the core methodologies, validate their performance against traditional benchmarks, and highlight their transformative application in drug discovery and development.

Core Methodologies in Landmark-Free Analysis

Landmark-free methods capture shape variation without relying on pre-defined homologous points. Several powerful approaches have been developed, each with distinct underlying principles.

Deterministic Atlas Analysis (DAA)

A prominent landmark-free method is Deterministic Atlas Analysis (DAA), implemented in software like Deformetrica. This approach uses a computational framework known as Large Deformation Diffeomorphic Metric Mapping (LDDMM) [53] [54].

• Workflow: DAA does not rely on a single fixed template. Instead, it iteratively estimates an optimal atlas shape—a geodesic mean of the entire dataset—by minimizing the total deformation energy required to map this atlas onto every specimen [53].
• Control Points and Momenta: A kernel width parameter determines the spatial resolution, generating a cloud of control points around the atlas. For each specimen, a corresponding momentum vector is calculated at each control point, quantifying the optimal deformation path needed to align the atlas with that specimen [53].
• Shape Comparison: The collection of momentum vectors for all specimens forms the basis for statistical shape analysis and comparison, typically visualized using techniques like kernel Principal Component Analysis (kPCA) [53].

Molecular Shape Similarity Methods

In drug discovery, 3D molecular shape similarity is a key concept for virtual screening and lead compound identification. These methods can be broadly classified as alignment-based or alignment-free [55] [56].

• Alignment-Based Methods: Tools like ROCS (Rapid Overlay of Chemical Structures) require finding the optimal superposition between molecules. They are powerful for visualizing complementarity but can be computationally intensive [55].
• Alignment-Free Methods: These offer significant speed advantages for screening large compound databases. A leading example is Ultrafast Shape Recognition (USR) [55].
  • USR Methodology: USR describes a molecule's shape using the distributions of atomic distances from four strategically chosen reference points: the molecular centroid (ctd), the closest atom to ctd (cst), the farthest atom from ctd (fct), and the farthest atom from fct (ftf). For each distribution, the first three statistical moments (mean, variance, and skewness) are calculated, producing a 12-dimensional descriptor vector [55].
  • Similarity Calculation: Shape similarity between two molecules is computed as the inverse of the Manhattan distance between their descriptor vectors, enabling rapid and efficient database screening [55].

The table below summarizes the core features of these representative methods.

Table 1: Comparison of Landmark-Free Morphometric Methods

Method	Core Principle	Key Outputs	Primary Applications	Advantages
Deterministic Atlas Analysis (DAA) [53]	Large Deformation Diffeomorphic Metric Mapping (LDDMM)	Momentum vectors, Control points, Atlas shape	Macroscopic anatomy (e.g., skulls, bones); Evolutionary studies	No need for homology; High-resolution mapping of local differences
Ultrafast Shape Recognition (USR) [55]	Atomic distance distributions from key points	12-dimensional descriptor vector	Virtual screening; Drug discovery	Extremely fast; Alignment-free; Enables scaffold hopping
3D Cell Shape Profiling with AI [57]	Geometric deep learning on 3D cell images	Shape fingerprint linked to biochemical state	Drug development; Cancer research	Analyzes cell populations with inherent variability; Decodes cellular state

Experimental Validation and Protocol

Landmark-free methods have been rigorously validated against traditional landmark-based approaches in multiple biological contexts.

Validation in Mammalian Craniofacial Analysis

A 2025 study by Toussaint et al. directly compared a high-density geometric morphometric approach with DAA using a dataset of 322 mammalian skulls spanning 180 families [53].

• Experimental Protocol:

  • Data Acquisition and Standardization: The dataset comprised mixed imaging modalities (CT and surface scans). To address this, researchers applied Poisson surface reconstruction to create watertight, closed meshes for all specimens, standardizing mesh topology [53].
  • Atlas Generation: An initial template specimen (Arctictis binturong) was selected. The DAA software then generated a sample-dependent atlas through iterative registration [53].
  • Parameter Testing: The analysis was performed using kernel widths of 40.0 mm, 20.0 mm, and 10.0 mm, which generated 45, 270, and 1,782 control points, respectively, demonstrating a trade-off between resolution and computational complexity [53].
  • Comparison with Landmarking: Shape variation captured by DAA's momentum vectors was compared to that from manual landmarks using statistical tests like the Mantel test and PROTEST [53].

• Key Findings: After mesh standardization, a significant improvement in the correlation between DAA and manual landmarking was observed. Both methods produced comparable estimates of phylogenetic signal, morphological disparity, and evolutionary rates, validating DAA's utility for macroevolutionary analyses [53].

Protocol for High-Resolution Phenotyping of Mouse Models

Another landmark-free pipeline was developed for characterizing craniofacial phenotypes in mouse models, such as the Dp1Tyb model of Down syndrome [54].

• Experimental Workflow:

  • Image Acquisition and Processing: Skulls of 16-week-old mice were scanned using µCT. Images were thresholded to extract bone, and cartilaginous structures were removed digitally [54].
  • Mesh Generation: Triangulated surface meshes were generated from the segmented images, decimated, and cleaned to create manageable file sizes [54].
  • Registration and Analysis: Meshes from all specimens were aligned to a common coordinate system. The landmark-free analysis then quantified the deformations required to map each specimen to a mean shape, allowing for a high-resolution comparison between mutant and wild-type mice [54].

• Key Findings: The landmark-free method performed as well as, or better than, the traditional landmark-based approach. It successfully identified known cranial dysmorphologies (e.g., brachycephaly) and, uniquely, pinpointed subtle local reductions in mid-snout structures and occipital bones that were not apparent with sparse landmarks [54]. A major advantage was the ability to produce intuitive "local stretch" maps that visually represented areas of expansion or contraction without artificially separating size from shape [54].

Diagram 1: Landmark-Free Morphometrics Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Implementing a landmark-free analysis pipeline requires a combination of specialized software, computational resources, and sample preparation tools.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions for Landmark-Free Morphometrics

Item / Reagent	Function / Application	Example / Note
Micro-CT Scanner	High-resolution 3D imaging of hard tissues (e.g., bone) and soft tissues with staining.	Essential for generating initial 3D digital specimens from physical samples [54].
Poisson Surface Reconstruction Algorithm	Creates watertight, closed surface meshes from point cloud data.	Critical for standardizing datasets with mixed imaging modalities (CT vs. surface scans) [53].
Deformetrica Software	Implements the Deterministic Atlas Analysis (DAA) using LDDMM.	Key software for performing landmark-free analysis on anatomical meshes [53].
Ultrafast Shape Recognition (USR)	Calculates alignment-free molecular shape similarity for virtual screening.	USR-VS webserver can screen billions of compounds extremely rapidly [55].
Geometric Deep Learning Models	AI-based profiling of 3D cell shapes to decode cellular state and drug response.	Used to identify "fingerprints" of cell state, revolutionizing drug discovery pipelines [57].

Application in Drug Discovery and Development

The transition to landmark-free shape analysis is poised to revolutionize drug discovery by enabling high-throughput, high-content phenotypic screening.

• AI-Powered Cell Shape Profiling: A groundbreaking application comes from cancer research, where AI systems now monitor the 3D shape of cells in response to drug treatments. This technology analyzes 3D cell shape as a fingerprint of cellular state, decoding the underlying biochemical changes induced by compounds. It can identify which drugs are acting on cells and pinpoint significant proteins for targeting, significantly speeding up the early drug discovery process [57].
• Virtual Screening and Scaffold Hopping: In silico, shape similarity methods like USR and ROCS are crucial for virtual screening. By comparing the 3D shape of a known active compound to large databases of molecules, researchers can identify structurally different compounds that share similar shape and, therefore, likely biological activity. This process, known as scaffold hopping, is vital for discovering novel chemical starting points and optimizing drug properties [55] [56].

Diagram 2: Shape-Based Virtual Screening

The rise of automated and landmark-free methods represents a paradigm shift in geometric morphometrics. By overcoming the critical bottlenecks of manual landmarking—time-intensity, operator bias, and homology dependency—these approaches unlock the potential of large-scale 3D image datasets. As validated in diverse applications from macroevolutionary analysis to the characterization of subtle disease phenotypes, methods like DAA provide comparable or superior results to traditional techniques while offering higher resolution and unique visualization capabilities.

In drug discovery, the integration of molecular shape comparison and AI-driven 3D cellular morphometrics is streamlining the path from target identification to lead optimization. By treating shape as a fundamental, quantifiable data source, these landmark-free pipelines are set to broaden the scope of identification research across biological disciplines, making sophisticated morphometric analysis more accessible, efficient, and impactful.

In the field of geometric morphometrics, where the precise analysis of shape using Cartesian coordinates is fundamental, the integration of mixed modality datasets presents both a significant challenge and a substantial opportunity [58]. Researchers often need to combine detailed internal anatomical data from Computed Tomography (CT) scans with external surface scans of specimens. However, these modalities exhibit profound heterogeneity; CT scans provide volumetric data on internal bone structures, while surface scans offer high-resolution, but solely external, shape information [59]. This heterogeneity, if unaddressed, can introduce noise and bias into analyses, compromising the identification of true biological signals and hindering research in domains ranging from paleontology to pharmaceutical development. This technical guide outlines advanced, practical strategies to overcome these challenges, enabling robust and reliable geometric morphometric analyses across diverse imaging modalities.

Core Technical Strategies for Mitigating Heterogeneity

Unified Model Architectures

A frontier approach involves developing universal models that can natively process multiple modalities. The Modality Projection Universal Model (MPUM) exemplifies this strategy. It employs a modality-projection mechanism that extracts modality-specific features from a shared high-dimensional space [60]. In this framework, the fundamental shape of an organ or anatomical structure is represented as a high-dimensional latent feature. This latent feature is then projected into different representation spaces tailored to specific imaging techniques, such as CT or surface scanning [60]. This allows a single model to achieve state-of-the-art whole-body organ segmentation across modalities without needing retraining, thus directly addressing inter-modality variability.

Distributed Learning Frameworks

Data heterogeneity is often compounded by data privacy concerns, especially in multi-institutional research. HeteroSync Learning (HSL) is a privacy-preserving, distributed framework designed specifically for this environment [61]. Its efficacy stems from two coordinated components:

• Shared Anchor Task (SAT): A homogeneous reference task, derived from public datasets, is used across all nodes to establish cross-node representation alignment. This task synchronizes the feature learning process, effectively homogenizing the heterogeneous distributions of the primary data [61].
• Auxiliary Learning Architecture: A Multi-gate Mixture-of-Experts (MMoE) architecture coordinates the concurrent optimization of the SAT and the local, private primary tasks (e.g., specific shape classification). This ensures that the generalized learning from the SAT enhances, rather than disrupts, the node-specific objectives [61].

Advanced Multi-Modal Fusion

For tasks requiring a single, enriched output, deep learning-based multi-modal image fusion is critical. Unlike simple overlay techniques, Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) can perform fusion at the pixel, feature, or decision level [59]. CNNs automatically learn to preserve critical, modality-specific information—such as bone detail from CT and soft-tissue contrast from MRI or high-resolution external form from surface scans—and integrate them into a coherent, information-rich output ideal for subsequent geometric morphometric analysis [59].

Table 1: Quantitative Performance Comparison of Heterogeneity Mitigation Strategies

Strategy	Representative Model	Key Mechanism	Reported Performance Advantage	Primary Use-Case
Unified Model	Modality Projection Universal Model (MPUM) [60]	Modality-projection into shared latent space	Achieved Dice score of 0.8517 (CT body) and 0.7751 (MRI body)	Multi-modal segmentation and shape analysis
Distributed Learning	HeteroSync Learning (HSL) [61]	Shared Anchor Task (SAT) with Auxiliary Learning	Outperformed 12 benchmark methods by up to 40% in AUC; matched central learning performance	Privacy-preserving analysis across multiple institutions
Multi-Modal Fusion	CNN-based Fusion [59]	Automated feature-level and pixel-level fusion	Far better qualitative and quantitative results vs. conventional methods (PCA, wavelets)	Creating unified, information-dense images for diagnosis

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol: Validating a Universal Segmentation Model

This protocol is based on the validation of the MPUM model, which can be adapted for benchmarking similar models in geometric morphometrics [60].

• Objective: To compare the segmentation performance of a universal model against state-of-the-art benchmarks and alternative training strategies across multiple imaging modalities.
• Dataset:
  • Utilize a multi-modal dataset containing paired or co-registered CT and surface (or MRI) scans. The MPUM study was trained on data from 861 unique subjects [60].
  • Annotations should include segmentation masks for the anatomical structures of interest.
• Preprocessing:
  • Standardize all images through resampling to an isotropic resolution (e.g., 2 mm).
  • Employ patch-based training with a consistent input size (e.g., 128 x 128 x 128 voxels).
  • Apply consistent augmentation strategies, such as random Gaussian smoothing and contrast adjustment [60].
• Model Training & Comparison:
  • Models: Compare the target universal model (e.g., MPUM) against other models like CDUM, PCNet, STUNet, and a scaled 3D UNet, normalizing parameter counts where possible (~60M) [60].
  • Training Strategies: Evaluate different multi-modality training approaches:
    • Modality-Mixed: Data from all modalities is combined in a single training set.
    • Modality-Specific: Separate models are trained for each modality.
    • Modality-Projection: The proposed unified strategy [60].
  • Optimization: Use the Adam optimizer (lr=3e-4, weight decay=3e-5) with a learning rate scheduler and early stopping. The loss function is typically a combination of categorical cross-entropy and soft Dice loss [60].
• Evaluation Metrics:
  • Dice Similarity Coefficient (Dice): Measures volumetric segmentation overlap.
  • Surface Dice: Assesses the accuracy of segmentation boundaries, crucial for morphometrics.
  • Report performance separately for each modality (e.g., CT body, MRI body, CT brain) [60].

Protocol: Implementing Distributed Learning for Heterogeneous Data

This protocol is derived from the large-scale simulation and real-world validation of the HeteroSync Learning (HSL) framework [61].

• Objective: To train a robust model on data distributed across multiple nodes, each with significant feature, label, or quantity skew.
• Simulation Setup (Example using MURA dataset):
  • Feature Distribution Skew: Assign radiographs from different anatomical regions (elbow, hand, wrist) to separate nodes [61].
  • Label Distribution Skew: Vary the ratio of normal to abnormal cases across different nodes (e.g., from 1:1 to 100:1) [61].
  • Quantity Skew: Create nodes with vastly different amounts of data (e.g., ratios from 1:1 to 80:1) [61].
• HSL Workflow:
  • Local Training: Each node trains the MMoE model on its private primary task data and the homogeneous SAT dataset for a set number of epochs.
  • Parameter Fusion: Each node aggregates the shared parameters (from the SAT task) from all other nodes.
  • Iterative Synchronization: Steps 1 and 2 are repeated until the model converges [61].
• Evaluation:
  • Compare HSL against benchmarks (FedAvg, FedProx, SplitAVG, FedBN) using the Area Under the Curve (AUC) of the Receiver Operating Characteristic.
  • Assess performance stability across nodes and on out-of-distribution data, such as rare disease populations where prevalence may be less than 1 in 2000 [61].

Diagram 1: HeteroSync Learning (HSL) workflow for distributed, heterogeneous data.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Tools for Multi-Modal Geometric Morphometrics Research

Tool / Reagent	Function / Description	Application in Protocol
Stratovan CheckPoint [58]	Software for placing homologous landmarks on 3D image data (isosurfaces).	Defining Cartesian (x,y,z) coordinate landmarks for Geometric Morphometric analysis on both CT and surface scan data.
MorphoJ [58]	Integrated software for performing geometric morphometrics.	Performing Procrustes superimposition, Principal Component Analysis (PCA), and visualizing shape variations.
Public Benchmark Datasets (e.g., RSNA, CIFAR-10) [61]	Curated, public datasets with homogeneous data distribution.	Serving as the Shared Anchor Task (SAT) dataset in HeteroSync Learning to align feature representations across nodes.
Multi-gate Mixture-of-Experts (MMoE) [61]	A neural network architecture designed for multi-task learning.	Core component of HSL, coordinating the learning between the local primary task and the global SAT to improve model generalization.
Geometric Morphometric Method (GMM) [58]	A technique using Cartesian landmark coordinates to study shape, independent of size.	The core analytical method for quantifying and comparing shapes derived from fused or co-analyzed multi-modal data.

Diagram 2: Multi-modal data pipeline for geometric morphometrics, from raw images to shape analysis.

Determining Optimal Sample Size and Statistical Power for Robust Results

In the precise science of geometric morphometrics (GM), where form is quantified as data for identification and classification, the question of "how many specimens are enough" is fundamental. The reliability of any conclusion about shape differences—whether for distinguishing species, identifying pathological conditions, or classifying nutritional status—hinges on the analyst's ability to control for random sampling error and ensure the study is powered to detect biologically meaningful effects [62]. Sample size and statistical power are not mere statistical formalities; they are the bedrock upon which robust and reproducible morphometric research is built. This guide provides an in-depth technical framework for determining optimal sample sizes and evaluating statistical power within the specific context of geometric morphometrics for identification research. We synthesize current methodologies and provide actionable protocols to help researchers design studies whose results are both statistically sound and biologically interpretable.

The Critical Role of Sample Size in Geometric Morphometrics

Geometric morphometrics analyzes the geometric properties of morphological structures using landmarks and outlines. This high-dimensional nature of shape data means that studies with insufficient sample sizes (n) are highly prone to overfitting, where a model describes random error rather than the underlying biological signal [63]. The consequences are tangible: underpowered studies may fail to detect true differences between groups (Type II errors), while others may identify spurious patterns that cannot be replicated in independent samples.

The definition of an "adequate" sample size is context-dependent, varying with the complexity of the structure, the subtlety of the shape difference under investigation, and the specific statistical methods employed. However, a foundational guideline, as noted in a study on crab-eating macaques, is that a minimum of 15–20 specimens per group is required to generate consistent estimates of mean shape, centroid size variance, and shape variance [64]. This value should be considered an absolute lower bound for simple intraspecific comparisons; studies investigating more complex questions, such as interspecific divergence or complex allometric relationships, will require significantly larger samples.

Challenges in Acquiring Adequate Samples

Researchers often face practical hurdles in obtaining sufficient sample sizes. Museum collections, a primary source for morphological data, may have limited specimens for certain taxa, and many of those available may exhibit postmortem damage or antemortem pathology, leading to their exclusion [64]. Furthermore, in applied fields like human health, obtaining large samples can be logistically challenging and expensive. For instance, research on child nutritional status from arm shape analysis must contend with the difficulties of collecting data from specific age and health groups in the field [65]. These realities make it imperative to strategically plan sampling and, where appropriate, employ methods that can maximize the utility of available specimens, including those with minor damage.

Quantitative Guidelines and Statistical Power Analysis

While rules-of-thumb provide a starting point, a more rigorous approach involves statistical power analysis. Power is the probability that a test will correctly reject a false null hypothesis (i.e., detect a real effect). In GM, this translates to the likelihood of detecting a true shape difference between groups or a genuine allometric relationship.

Methodologies for Power and Sample Size Estimation

1. Pilot Studies: The most effective method for estimating sample size is to conduct a pilot study. A small, representative sample is collected and analyzed to estimate the effect size (e.g., the Procrustes distance between group means) and the amount of shape variation. These estimates are then used in formal power calculations.

2. Parametric Methods (Using Software like R): Using the geomorph package in R, one can perform a power analysis for a Procrustes ANOVA. The function precision can be used to estimate the smallest detectable effect size for a given sample size and power. Alternatively, one can simulate data based on pilot study parameters to determine the sample size needed to achieve a desired power level (typically 80% or higher).

3. Non-Parametric Methods (Using MORPHIX): The MORPHIX Python package offers a machine-learning-based alternative for evaluating sample adequacy. It uses supervised classifiers to assess whether the shape data contain a robust signal for group identification. If a classifier consistently fails to accurately assign specimens to their known groups in cross-validation, it suggests the sample size may be too small or the effect too subtle for the available n [63].

Table 1: Summary of Sample Size Recommendations from Morphometric Literature.

Context of Study	Recommended Minimum Sample Size (per group)	Key Considerations	Primary Citation/Support
General Intraspecific Comparison	15 - 20 specimens	For consistent estimation of mean shape and variance. Considered a bare minimum.	[64]
Studies Involving Damaged Specimens	> 20 specimens (for bolstered datasets)	Inclusion of damaged/pathologic specimens can aid in estimating dominant allometry and sexual dimorphism.	[64]
High-Density Landmark/Semi-landmark Studies	>> 20 specimens	Higher-dimensional data (e.g., from curves/surfaces) requires larger samples to avoid overfitting.	[23] [63]
Classification & Identification Research	Dependent on classifier performance	Sample size is adequate when cross-validation classification accuracy stabilizes at a high level.	[65] [63]

Practical Protocols for Sample Size Determination

This section outlines a step-by-step experimental protocol for determining sample size in a GM identification study.

Protocol 1: Iterative Sample Size Assessment Using Cross-Validation

Objective: To empirically determine the sample size required for a robust classification model.

Materials and Reagents:

• Sample Pool: A large, pre-existing collection of specimens with known group affiliations (e.g., species, nutritional status).
• Software: R with geomorph, MASS packages; or Python with MORPHIX and scikit-learn.

Methodology:

• Pilot Sampling: Randomly select a small, balanced subset (e.g., n=15 per group) from your full sample pool.
• Data Acquisition & Processing: Digitize landmarks/semi-landmarks, perform Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA), and extract Procrustes shape coordinates.
• Model Training & Testing: Train a classifier (e.g., Linear Discriminant Analysis) on the Procrustes coordinates. Perform a leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) to estimate classification accuracy.
• Iterative Augmentation: Sequentially add new, randomly selected specimens from the pool to your sample and repeat step 3 after each addition.
• Analysis of Learning Curve: Plot classification accuracy against cumulative sample size. The point where the accuracy curve begins to asymptote (plateau) indicates a sufficient sample size for a stable model.

Figure 1: Workflow for iterative sample size assessment using cross-validation.

Protocol 2: Evaluating the Impact of Specimen Quality

Objective: To assess whether including slightly damaged or pathological specimens bolsters or confounds the analysis of dominant shape trends.

Materials and Reagents:

• Specimen Groups: A dataset containing "ideal" specimens (all landmarks present, no pathology) and "non-ideal" specimens (with defined damage/pathology).

Methodology:

• Create Datasets: Construct several datasets:
  • Dataset 1: Only ideal specimens.
  • Dataset 2: Ideal specimens + slightly damaged specimens.
  • Dataset 3: All available specimens.
• Allometric & Dimorphism Analysis: For each dataset, perform a multivariate regression of shape on size (log centroid size) to assess allometry, and a Procrustes ANOVA to evaluate sexual dimorphism.
• Compare Results: Compare the statistical support (e.g., p-values, effect sizes, R²) for allometry and dimorphism across datasets. As demonstrated by Ito et al. (2021), if the inclusion of non-ideal specimens strengthens the statistical support for these dominant biological predictors without drastically altering the allometric vector, it suggests they can be used to bolster sample size for these major aspects of shape variation [64]. However, fine-scale patterns may be affected.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Geometric Morphometrics.

Reagent / Tool	Function in Analysis	Technical Notes
Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA)	Superimposes landmark configurations by removing differences in location, scale, and orientation, isolating pure "shape" for analysis.	Foundational step. Implemented in software like MorphoJ and R's geomorph.
Procrustes ANOVA	Statistically tests for shape differences between groups (e.g., species, sexes) and the effect of allometry (size on shape).	Partitioning of sum of squares on Procrustes coordinates.
Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA)	A classification technique that finds axes that best separate pre-defined groups. Used for identification and to validate group differences.	Performance is highly dependent on sample size. Prone to overfitting with small n.
Principal Component Analysis (PCA)	Reduces the dimensionality of shape data to visualize the major axes of shape variation in a sample.	Standard, but criticized for potential artifacts; should not be the sole basis for taxonomic inferences [63].
Supervised Machine Learning Classifiers (in MORPHIX)	Uses algorithms (e.g., SVM, Random Forests) to learn patterns for group identification from training data.	Proposed as a more accurate and robust alternative to PCA-based inference for classification tasks [63].

Determining the optimal sample size is not a one-size-fits-all process in geometric morphometrics. It is an iterative, question-specific investigation that balances statistical rigor with practical constraints. The protocols and guidelines presented here provide a pathway to robust results. The foundational minimum of 15-20 specimens per group is a starting point, but larger samples are almost always better, particularly for complex structures or subtle differences. The strategic inclusion of less-than-perfect specimens can be a valid method for increasing sample size and statistical power for dominant shape trends, though caution is advised for fine-scale analysis. Finally, moving beyond traditional PCA-based inference towards machine learning classification and rigorous cross-validation provides a more reliable framework for making definitive identifications and ensuring that morphometric research meets the highest standards of scientific evidence.

Proving Its Worth: How Geometric Morphometrics Stacks Up Against Other Techniques

The taxonomic identification of isolated fossil shark teeth, one of the most abundant finds in the palaeontological record, is often hindered by remarkable morphological similarities between distinct taxa. While qualitative analysis has been the traditional mainstay, it can struggle to detect minimal morphological differences, leading to contentious identifications. This guide details how geometric morphometrics (GM), a coordinate-based quantitative approach, outperforms traditional morphometrics (TM) by capturing a more comprehensive shape signal. We demonstrate that GM not only validates separations achieved by TM but also extracts additional morphological information, providing a more powerful tool for supporting taxonomic identification in shark dental research [14] [66].

The evolutionary history of sharks is largely written from their isolated teeth. Due to a cartilaginous skeleton that rarely fossilizes, teeth are often the only remains available for study, prized for their durability and abundance resulting from continuous replacement throughout a shark's life [14]. However, this abundance presents a challenge: qualitative identification can be unreliable due to evolutionary convergence, where unrelated species develop similar tooth morphologies [14] [66]. This has sparked debates on the validity of certain taxa and underscores the need for robust, quantitative methods to support and complement traditional identification [66].

Quantitative morphometrics offers a solution. Traditional morphometrics (TM) relies on linear measurements, distances, and angles, analyzed using multivariate statistics like Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Discriminant Analysis (DA) [66]. In contrast, geometric morphometrics (GM) uses the coordinates of biological landmarks, preserving the geometry of the shape throughout the analysis and allowing for detailed visualization of shape changes [14] [67]. This technical guide explores the application of both methods, demonstrating why GM is increasingly seen as the superior approach for capturing the intricate shape of shark teeth.

Methodological Comparison: A Technical Deep Dive

This section breaks down the core components of traditional and geometric morphometrics, providing a structured comparison for researchers.

Core Principles and Data Structures

Table 1: Fundamental Comparison of Traditional and Geometric Morphometrics

Feature	Traditional Morphometrics (TM)	Geometric Morphometrics (GM)
Data Type	Linear measurements, ratios, angles [66].	2D or 3D coordinates of landmarks and semilandmarks [14].
Shape Capture	Indirect; reduces shape to a set of metrics, losing geometric relation [67].	Direct; preserves the full geometry of the form throughout analysis [67].
Information Retained	Limited; focuses on pre-defined dimensions [14].	High; captures the overall shape configuration, including information between landmarks [14].
Statistical Analysis	Multivariate analysis (PCA, DA) on measurement matrices [66].	Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA) to remove non-shape variation, followed by PCA or DA on shape coordinates [14] [19].
Visualization of Results	Difficult to relate statistical results back to actual shape changes.	Intuitive; allows for visualization of shape changes along axes (e.g., deformation grids) [67].

Quantitative Data: Side-by-Side Comparison

The following table summarizes key outcomes from a direct comparison study on the same dataset of lamniform shark teeth, comprising 120 specimens from genera like Brachycarcharias, Carcharias, Carcharomodus, and Lamna [14].

Table 2: Empirical Comparison from a Unified Study on Shark Teeth [14]

Analysis Aspect	Traditional Morphometrics (TM)	Geometric Morphometrics (GM)
Taxonomic Separation	Successfully recovered separation between genera [66].	Recovered the same taxonomic separation as TM [14].
Morphological Data	Captured shape variation defined by the pre-selected measurements.	Captured additional shape variables not considered by traditional methods [14].
Morphological Insight	Useful for discrimination but offers limited insight into specific shape changes.	Provided a larger amount of information about tooth morphology, detailing how specific features vary [14].
Primary Advantage	Can be applied to fragmented specimens if key measurements are obtainable.	A more powerful tool for supporting taxonomic identification due to richer shape capture [14].

Experimental Protocols for Shark Tooth Morphometrics

Here, we outline detailed methodological workflows for applying both GM and TM to isolated shark teeth.

Geometric Morphometrics Protocol

This protocol is adapted from Pagliuzzi et al. (2025) for the analysis of lamniform shark teeth [14].

1. Taxon Sampling & Specimen Preparation:

• Select a sample of isolated teeth, ensuring they are as complete as possible. Incomplete specimens with missing landmarks must be excluded to ensure reliable statistical comparisons [14].
• Group specimens a priori based on qualitative taxonomic identification (e.g., by genus). Include both fossil and extant taxa where possible, using extant species as controls since their jaw positions are known [14].

2. Landmarking and Semilandmark Digitization:

• Use software such as TPSdig [14] [19] to digitize landmarks on 2D images (lingual or labial view).
• Landmark Scheme: A typical scheme for a shark tooth may include [14]:
  • 7 Homologous Landmarks: Placed at biologically definable, homologous points (e.g., tip of the main cusp, extremities of the crown-root junction, tips of lateral cusplets). These are often Type 1 and Type 2 landmarks [67].
  • 8 Semilandmarks: Placed as equidistant points along the curved profile of the ventral margin of the tooth root, where no discrete homologous points exist. These capture the outline geometry and are slid during analysis to minimize bending energy [14].

3. Data Processing & Statistical Analysis:

• Perform a Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA): This superimposes all landmark configurations by scaling them to a unit size, translating them to a common position, and rotating them to minimize the sum of squared distances between corresponding landmarks. This step removes differences due to size, position, and orientation, isolating pure "shape" [19].
• Slide semilandmarks to minimize bending energy, treating them as homologous points for analysis [19].
• Conduct a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) on the Procrustes shape coordinates to visualize the major axes of shape variation and examine group separations in morphospace [14] [19].
• Perform a Discriminant Analysis (DA) or Canonical Variate Analysis (CVA) to test hypotheses of group differences and classify specimens into pre-defined taxa [66].

The workflow for this protocol is summarized in the diagram below.

Traditional Morphometrics Protocol

This protocol is based on the work of Marramà & Kriwet (2017) [66].

1. Taxon Sampling:

• Follow a similar specimen selection strategy as for GM. The original study used 175 isolated teeth from fossil and extant lamniform sharks [66].

2. Linear Measurement Collection:

• Collect a suite of linear measurements and angles from the teeth. These can include [66]:
  • Linear Variables: Total height of the tooth, height of the main cusp, width of the crown, height and width of the root.
  • Angular Variables: Inclination of the main cusp.
• Measurements are typically taken from the labial or lingual sides, as these are most accessible for fossil specimens embedded in matrix [66].

3. Data Processing & Statistical Analysis:

• Compile all measurements into a data matrix.
• Use Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to reduce the multidimensional data and identify which measurements contribute most to variation. This helps visualize whether specimens group by taxon [66].
• Use Discriminant Analysis (DA) to maximize the separation between pre-defined groups (taxa) and test the statistical significance of these separations using tests like Hotelling’s t²-test. DA can also be used to classify indeterminate teeth into a specific taxon [66].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Table 3: Key Materials and Software for Shark Tooth Morphometrics

Item/Software	Function/Brief Explanation	Example/Note
High-Resolution Camera	To capture consistent, 2D digital images of specimens for analysis.	Mounted on a photostand to ensure a standard angle [19].
Digitization Software	To record the coordinates of landmarks and semilandmarks from images.	TPSdig is the widely used standard [14] [19].
Morphometric Analysis Software	To perform GPA, PCA, DA, and other statistical shape analyses.	R packages like geomorph [19].
Homologous Landmarks	Biologically definable points that are consistent across all specimens.	Essential for GM; e.g., tip of main cusp, crown-root junction points [14] [67].
Semilandmarks	Points used to capture the geometry of curves and outlines between landmarks.	Crucial for quantifying root shape in shark teeth [14].
Micro-CT Scanner	(For 3D GM) To create high-resolution 3D models of teeth, capturing complex morphology.	Allows for 3D landmarking, though more costly and computationally intensive [19].

Critical Considerations for Robust Morphometric Analysis

• Sample Size: Larger sample sizes lead to more stable estimates of mean shape and variance. Reducing sample size can increase shape variance and distance from the true mean, potentially affecting the discrimination of closely related taxa [19].
• Specimen Integrity: GM requires consistent landmarks, so fragmented or incomplete specimens can pose a significant challenge and may need to be excluded [14].
• View and Element Selection: In 2D GM, the choice of view (e.g., lingual vs. labial) can impact results, as shape differences are not always consistent across views. The hypothesis being tested should guide this choice [19].
• Complementary, Not Replacement: Both GM and TM are intended to support and complement qualitative taxonomic identification, not replace it [14] [66].

The analytical pathway from raw data to biological insight is summarized in the following workflow.

For researchers in palaeontology and systematics, the choice between morphometric methods is clear. While traditional morphometrics provides a valuable and statistically robust way to support taxonomic identifications based on measurements, geometric morphometrics offers a superior capacity to capture and visualize the complex geometry of biological shape. By directly analyzing landmark coordinates, GM recovers all the discriminatory power of TM while also capturing a richer shape signal, thereby providing a more powerful and insightful tool for unlocking the taxonomic and phylogenetic information encoded in fossil shark teeth [14].

Validating GM Classifications with Molecular Data and Independent Anatomical Evidence

Geometric morphometrics (GM) has emerged as a powerful tool for taxonomic identification, particularly for groups where traditional morphological analysis faces challenges due to evolutionary convergence, cryptic species, or minimal morphological variation [14]. This quantitative approach analyzes the precise geometry of biological structures using Cartesian coordinates of landmarks, providing a robust statistical framework for capturing shape variation [16]. Unlike traditional qualitative assessments, GM can detect subtle morphological differences often overlooked by visual inspection alone, making it particularly valuable for distinguishing closely related species [47]. The method's reproducibility and cost-effectiveness have led to its successful application across diverse taxa, from fossil shark teeth to agriculturally important insect pests [14] [49].

However, the validity of morphological groupings established through GM requires rigorous testing against independent lines of evidence. Molecular data and other anatomical characters provide essential validation, ensuring that shape-based classifications reflect true biological relationships rather than phenotypic plasticity or environmental influences. This integration of approaches is especially critical in contexts with significant economic or ecological consequences, such as quarantine decisions for invasive species or interpretations of evolutionary patterns from fossil material [47] [49].

Theoretical Framework: Integrating Morphometric and Molecular Data

The validation of geometric morphometric classifications follows a hierarchical framework where shape data forms the initial hypothesis of taxonomic distinctness, which is then tested against independent molecular and anatomical evidence. This integrated approach strengthens taxonomic conclusions by triangulating multiple data types, each with its own strengths and limitations.

Geometric morphometrics operates on the principle that biological shapes can be quantified through homologous landmarks—discrete anatomical points that correspond across specimens [14]. Through Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA), raw coordinate data is standardized by removing the effects of size, position, and orientation, allowing pure shape variation to be analyzed statistically [49]. The resulting shape variables can then be examined using multivariate techniques like Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to visualize natural groupings in morphospace, or Canonical Variate Analysis (CVA) to maximize separation among predefined groups [47] [49].

Molecular validation typically follows one of two pathways: (1) Confirmatory testing, where DNA barcoding or sequencing verifies the distinctness of morphometrically identified groups, or (2) Phylogenetic frameworking, where molecular phylogenies provide an independent structure against which morphological evolution can be mapped. Similarly, independent anatomical evidence—whether from traditional morphometrics, discrete characters, or different structures—serves to test the consistency of shape-based classifications across multiple morphological systems.

Table 1: Data Types for Validating GM Classifications

Data Type	Primary Role	Key Strengths	Common Analytical Methods
Geometric Morphometrics	Initial hypothesis generation of taxonomic groups	Captures continuous shape variation; High statistical power	Procrustes ANOVA, PCA, CVA, Mahalanobis distances
Molecular Data	Independent validation of species boundaries	Not influenced by environmental plasticity; Provides evolutionary context	DNA barcoding, Phylogenetic analysis, Genetic distances
Traditional Morphometrics	Complementary shape analysis	Direct measurement of ecologically relevant traits; Easier to interpret	Linear measurements, Ratios, ANOVA
Discrete Anatomical Characters	Additional morphological validation	Clear character states; Traditional taxonomic utility	Character state analysis, Phylogenetic mapping

Experimental Protocols and Methodological Approaches

Landmark-Based Geometric Morphometrics

The foundational protocol for GM begins with the careful selection and digitization of landmarks. In a study on fossil shark teeth, researchers placed seven homologous landmarks and eight semilandmarks along the curved profile of the ventral margin of the tooth root to capture overall shape [14]. Similarly, research on thrips of the genus Thrips used 11 landmarks on the head and 10 on the thorax to quantify shape variation among species [47]. The standard workflow involves:

• Image Acquisition: High-resolution images of specimens are obtained under standardized conditions. For example, in the study of Acanthocephala bugs, images were sourced from the USDA ImageID database and verified by taxonomic experts [49].
• Landmark Digitization: Using software such as TPSDig2, researchers place Type I, II, and III landmarks on biologically homologous positions [14] [47]. Semilandmarks are used to capture curvature along structures without discrete landmarks.
• Procrustes Superimposition: The landmark configurations are scaled to unit centroid size, translated to a common position, and rotated to minimize the sum of squared distances between corresponding landmarks [49]. This removes non-shape variation while preserving the geometric relationships among landmarks.
• Statistical Shape Analysis: The resulting Procrustes coordinates are analyzed using multivariate methods. PCA reveals major axes of shape variation within the sample, while CVA maximizes separation among predefined groups. Procrustes ANOVA tests for significant shape differences among taxa [47] [49].

Integrating Traditional and Geometric Morphometrics

Traditional morphometrics provides a complementary approach to shape analysis through linear measurements. In a study on sexual dimorphism in Colossoma macropomum, researchers combined both methods, using geometric morphometrics for overall body shape analysis while employing linear measurements for specific dimensions like head region and anterior body width [16]. This integration offers both visualization of shape changes and precise quantification of particular morphological regions.

The protocol for traditional morphometrics typically involves:

• Measurement Selection: Choosing ecologically or taxonomically informative linear dimensions (e.g., body length, head width, fin positions).
• Digital Calibration: Using image analysis software like ImageJ to collect measurements standardized to a scale.
• Size Correction: Applying appropriate size correction methods such as ratios or regression residuals to isolate shape variation from allometric effects.
• Statistical Analysis: Employing univariate or multivariate statistics to test for differences among groups.

Table 2: Comparison of Morphometric Approaches for Taxonomic Identification

Characteristic	Geometric Morphometrics	Traditional Morphometrics
Data Type	Cartesian coordinates of landmarks	Linear distances, angles, ratios
Shape Capture	Complete geometry of structure	Partial representation of form
Statistical Power	High - captures subtle shape differences	Moderate - may overlook complex shape features
Visualization	Excellent - warp grids, deformation plots	Limited - primarily numerical output
Allometry Analysis	Multivariate regression of shape on size	Linear regression of measurements on size
Software Tools	TPS series, MorphoJ, R (geomorph)	ImageJ, PAST, standard statistical packages
Complementary Use	Provides overall shape discrimination	Quantifies specific morphological regions

Molecular Validation Protocols

Molecular techniques provide genetic evidence to test morphometric classifications. While specific protocols were not detailed in the search results, standard approaches include:

• DNA Extraction: Tissue sampling and DNA isolation from representative specimens.
• Marker Selection: Choosing appropriate genetic markers (e.g., COI for animal barcoding, ITS for plants).
• Amplification and Sequencing: PCR amplification and sequencing of target regions.
• Phylogenetic Analysis: Constructing gene trees to test monophyly of morphometrically defined groups.

The congruence between molecular phylogenies and morphometric groupings provides strong evidence for taxonomic distinctness, while discordance may indicate convergent evolution or cryptic diversity.

Essential Research Toolkit for GM Validation Studies

Successful validation of GM classifications requires specialized tools and reagents for morphological and molecular work. The following toolkit covers essential components for comprehensive morphometric research:

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions and Essential Materials for GM Validation

Tool/Reagent	Function/Application	Examples/Specifications
Imaging Equipment	High-resolution specimen documentation	Digital microscope cameras, standardized lighting
Landmark Digitation Software	Coordinate data acquisition	TPSDig2 [14] [47] [49]
Shape Analysis Software	Statistical shape analysis	MorphoJ [16] [47] [49], R (geomorph package) [47] [49]
Molecular Extraction Kits	DNA/RNA isolation from tissue samples	Commercial kits for various sample types and qualities
PCR Reagents	Amplification of genetic markers	Taq polymerase, dNTPs, primer sets for barcoding genes
Sequencing Services	Determination of DNA sequences	Sanger or next-generation sequencing platforms
Statistical Software	Multivariate analysis and visualization	PAST [16], R with multivariate packages

Workflow Visualization: Validating GM Classifications

The following diagram illustrates the integrated workflow for validating geometric morphometric classifications with molecular and anatomical evidence:

This integrated workflow demonstrates how multiple lines of evidence converge to validate taxonomic hypotheses generated through geometric morphometrics. The process begins with careful specimen collection and preparation, followed by parallel data collection through morphological and molecular approaches. The critical integration phase assesses congruence among data types, with consistent patterns providing strong support for taxonomic conclusions, while discordance necessitates re-evaluation of initial hypotheses.

Case Studies and Applications

Fossil Shark Teeth Identification

In paleontology, where molecular data is often unavailable, geometric morphometrics has proven valuable for distinguishing fossil shark taxa based on isolated teeth. A study comparing traditional and geometric morphometrics on lamniform shark teeth found that GM successfully recovered taxonomic separation while capturing additional shape variables that traditional methods overlooked [14]. The analysis of 120 specimens from both fossil and extant species demonstrated GM's superior ability to detect minimal morphological differences between genera like Brachycarcharias, Carcharias, Carcharomodus, and Lamna. This approach provides a methodological framework for validating taxonomic identifications when only hard parts are preserved in the fossil record.

Thrips Species Delimitation

Research on quarantine-significant thrips of the genus Thrips applied GM to head and thorax shapes to distinguish invasive from non-invasive species [47]. Principal Component Analysis revealed statistically significant differences in head morphology and setal insertion points on the thorax, with the first three PCs accounting for over 73% of total head shape variation. The analysis identified T. australis and T. angusticeps as the most morphologically distinct species in head shape, while T. nigropilosus, T. obscuratus, and T. hawaiiensis showed the greatest divergence in thoracic morphology. This study demonstrates GM's utility for identifying economically important species where traditional taxonomy struggles with morphological conservatism.

Leaf-Footed Bug Taxonomy

A study on Acanthocephala leaf-footed bugs applied GM to pronotum shape variation across 11 species, several of quarantine concern to the United States [49]. Principal component analysis accounted for 67% of total shape variation and revealed distinct patterns useful for species discrimination. Although some closely related taxa showed morphological overlap, most comparisons yielded statistically significant results, supporting the pronotum shape as a reliable characteristic for species delimitation. The research highlights GM's value for taxonomic groups with limited identification tools, particularly where economic consequences demand accurate and rapid identification.

The validation of geometric morphometric classifications through molecular data and independent anatomical evidence represents a robust framework for taxonomic identification across biological disciplines. By integrating multiple lines of evidence, researchers can overcome the limitations of individual approaches and develop more reliable classification systems. This integrated methodology is particularly valuable for challenging taxonomic scenarios, including cryptic species complexes, fragmentary fossil material, and agriculturally significant pests requiring rapid identification. As geometric morphometrics continues to evolve alongside molecular techniques, this synthetic approach will play an increasingly important role in elucidating biological diversity and supporting critical decisions in fields ranging from evolutionary biology to agricultural biosecurity.

The reconstruction of biological profiles from skeletal remains is a cornerstone of anthropological science, playing a vital role in forensic investigations and archaeological studies. Sex estimation_ stands as a pivotal first step in this process, narrowing the pool of potential identities and informing subsequent analyses of age, stature, and ancestry [68]. Traditional methods have largely relied on visual (morphoscopic) assessment of dimorphic skeletal traits or standard biometric measurements. However, these approaches are often prone to human bias, influenced by population-specific variations, and may lack the sensitivity to capture more subtle shape differences [69].

In recent years, two technological paradigms have emerged to address these limitations. Geometric Morphometrics (GM) provides a powerful statistical framework for quantifying and analyzing shape based on landmark coordinates, preserving the complete geometry of a structure throughout the analysis [14]. Concurrently, Machine Learning (AI) algorithms, including Random Forest, have demonstrated exceptional pattern recognition capabilities for complex, multidimensional data [70]. The integration of GM's rich shape descriptors with the predictive power of AI represents a transformative frontier in forensic anthropology. This whitepaper explores this synthesis, detailing how the combination of geometric morphometrics and Random Forest algorithms is setting new standards for accuracy in skeletal sex estimation.

Theoretical Foundation: GM and AI in Anthropology

Geometric Morphometrics: Beyond Linear Measurements

Geometric morphometrics moves beyond traditional linear measurements by focusing on the geometric configuration of landmarks and semilandmarks. Landmarks are discrete, homologous anatomical points that can be precisely located across different specimens, while semilandmarks are used to capture the morphology of curves and surfaces between landmarks [14]. The core strength of GM lies in its ability to separate shape from size, allowing researchers to statistically analyze pure morphological form.

The typical GM workflow involves:

• Data Acquisition: Capturing 3D coordinate data from skeletal elements using 3D scanners or CT scans.
• Procrustes Superimposition: A geometric procedure that removes differences in location, orientation, and scale by optimally aligning landmark configurations. This step isolates "shape" for subsequent analysis [17].
• Statistical Analysis: Analyzing the Procrustes-aligned coordinates using multivariate statistics to extract major patterns of shape variation.

This approach has been successfully applied to diverse morphological questions, from taxonomic identification of fossil shark teeth [14] to detecting reproductive stages in free-ranging killer whales [17], demonstrating its versatility and power.

Random Forest: A Primer for Pattern Recognition

Random Forest is an ensemble learning method that operates by constructing a multitude of decision trees during training. Its suitability for morphometric data stems from several key characteristics:

• Handling High-Dimensional Data: It robustly handles datasets with a large number of variables (e.g., 3D landmark coordinates), even when the number of variables exceeds the number of specimens.
• Non-Linearity: It can capture complex, non-linear relationships between shape variables and biological sex, which linear models might miss.
• Feature Importance: The algorithm provides metrics on which variables (landmarks) are most contributory to classification, offering a degree of interpretability [68].

The algorithm's "ensemble" nature, where predictions are made by aggregating the results of many decorrelated trees, makes it particularly robust against overfitting, a common concern with high-dimensional data.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

The integration of GM and AI follows a structured pipeline, from data collection to model validation. The following protocol details the key stages, with specific examples from recent literature.

Data Acquisition and Preprocessing

Imaging and 3D Model Generation: The process typically begins with volumetric clinical imaging, such as computed tomography (CT) scans. As demonstrated in coxal bone studies, DICOM files from CT scans are used to generate 3D surface models of the skeletal element of interest via segmentation software like InVesalius or similar tools. The segmentation often uses a "Bone" threshold to isolate the skeletal structure [68].

Landmarking Protocol: Landmarks are subsequently digitized on the 3D models using software such as MeshLab or TPSdig. The number and type of landmarks are critical. For instance:

• A study on fossil shark teeth used 7 homologous landmarks and 8 semilandmarks to capture tooth shape [14].
• A study on killer whale body shape used 6 landmarks from aerial imagery to detect pregnancy [17].
• Research on coxal bones employed 34 landmarks on each bone to characterize pelvic morphology [68].

Procrustes Fitting and Data Preparation: The raw landmark coordinates are subjected to a Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA) to remove non-shape variation. The resulting Procrustes coordinates form the primary dataset for analysis. This dataset is then split into training and testing sets (e.g., a 70/30 or 80/20 split) to enable unbiased evaluation of the model's performance.

Model Training with Random Forest

The Procrustes coordinates (the shape variables) are used as features (predictor variables), and biological sex is used as the label (response variable). The Random Forest model is then trained on the training set. Key hyperparameters, such as the number of trees in the forest (n_estimators), the maximum depth of each tree (max_depth), and the number of features considered for splitting a node (max_features), are optimized, typically via cross-validation. The model learns the complex combinations of shape features that are most predictive of sex.

Validation and Interpretation

The trained model's performance is evaluated on the held-out test set. Standard metrics include Accuracy, Sensitivity (true positive rate for a specific sex), Specificity (true negative rate), and the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUROC). To interpret the model, researchers examine the feature importance scores provided by the Random Forest, which indicate which landmarks contribute most to sex classification. This can be visualized by warping a template mesh according to the shape variation associated with those important landmarks.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Different AI Approaches for Skeletal Sex Estimation

Skeletal Element	Method	Input Data	Sample Size	Reported Accuracy	Citation
Cranium	Deep Learning (Multi-task)	3D CT Scans	200	97%	[69]
Coxal Bones	Machine Learning (SVM/Logistic Regression)	34 Landmarks (3D)	276	95% - 100%	[68]
Coxal Bones	Geometric Morphometrics	Landmark Configurations	120	High discrimination reported	[68]
Cranium	Human Observer (Walker Traits)	Visual Assessment	200	82%	[69]

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the integrated GM and AI workflow for sex estimation, from data acquisition to the final biological profile.

Key Research Reagents and Solutions

The following table details essential tools, software, and analytical components that form the core toolkit for conducting research in GM-AI integration.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for GM-AI Integration

Item Name / Category	Function / Purpose	Example Tools / Notes
3D Imaging Hardware	Acquires volumetric digital data of skeletal specimens.	Clinical CT Scanners (e.g., Toshiba Aquilion 64); Surface Scanners [68].
Segmentation Software	Generates 3D surface models from medical imaging data (DICOM files).	InVesalius; commercial or open-source alternatives [68].
Landmark Digitization Tool	Precisely collects 2D/3D landmark coordinates from specimens or models.	TPSdig (2D); MeshLab (3D) [14] [68].
Geometric Morphometrics Suite	Performs core GM operations (Procrustes fitting, PCA, etc.).	MorphoJ; R packages (e.g., geomorph) [17].
Programming & ML Environment	Provides environment for data preprocessing, model training, and validation.	Python (Scikit-learn, SciPy); R [68].
Random Forest Algorithm	The core ML classifier for identifying complex patterns in shape data.	Implemented via scikit-learn (Python) or randomForest (R) [68].

Discussion and Future Directions

The synthesis of Geometric Morphometrics and Random Forest algorithms represents a significant leap forward for sex estimation in forensic anthropology. This integrated approach offers several key advantages over traditional methods. It leverages the full richness of biological shape, which is often more informative than isolated linear measurements or subjective trait scores [69] [68]. Furthermore, the high accuracy of AI models, as shown in Table 1, frequently surpasses that of human experts, reducing observer bias and increasing the objectivity and reproducibility of assessments [69].

This methodology also enhances explainability. While some AI models are "black boxes," the combination of GM and Random Forest allows researchers to identify which specific anatomical regions are most sexually dimorphic through feature importance analysis. This provides crucial biological insights that can refine existing anthropological standards.

Future developments in this field are likely to focus on the creation of large, shared, population-specific digital skeletal archives, which are essential for training robust and generalizable models. There is also a growing trend towards fully automated pipelines that integrate deep learning for landmark placement with traditional GM and ML classification, streamlining the entire process from scan to sex estimate [69]. As these tools become more accessible and validated, they will undoubtedly become an indispensable part of the forensic anthropologist's toolkit, improving the accuracy and efficiency of identification processes worldwide.

The field of geometric morphometrics has been transformed by methods enabling precise quantification of anatomical shape, with 3D geometric morphometrics emerging as the gold standard for evolutionary and biological shape analysis [53]. Traditionally, this approach relies on manual placement of homologous landmarks, which is time-consuming, susceptible to operator bias, and limits comparisons across morphologically disparate taxa where identifiable homologous points become scarce [53] [71]. Emerging automated, landmark-free techniques—particularly those based on Large Deformation Diffeomorphic Metric Mapping (LDDMM)—offer potential solutions by capturing shape variation without relying solely on homologous landmarks [53] [72]. This technical guide provides an in-depth comparison of these approaches, benchmarking their performance, applications, and suitability for shape analysis in identification research.

Theoretical Foundations of Compared Methods

Traditional Landmark-Based Geometric Morphometrics

Traditional geometric morphometrics operates through a structured pipeline requiring explicit biological correspondence points:

• Landmark Definition: Anatomical loci are identified as Type I, II, or III landmarks based on biological homology across specimens [53].
• Data Collection: Manual or semi-automated digitization of 2D or 3D coordinates labels these homologous points [6].
• Procrustes Superimposition: Raw coordinates are transformed using Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA) to register objects to a common frame, isolating biological variation by minimizing non-biological factors including position, orientation, and size [6] [71].
• Shape Space Analysis: Linear displacement across all coordinates is measured and scaled by the number of landmarks to estimate shape covariation [53].

This method's effectiveness is well-established but constrained by its dependency on homology, which becomes limiting when comparing phylogenetically distinct taxa with fewer discernible homologous points [53].

Landmark-Free Methods: The LDDMM Framework

Landmark-free approaches, particularly LDDMM-based methods, fundamentally differ in their mathematical foundation:

• Diffeomorphic Mapping: LDDMM generates non-linear smooth transformations with topology-preserving one-to-one mapping properties between shapes [72].
• Momentum Parameterization: Instead of predicting landmarks directly, the method predicts initial momentum vectors that uniquely parameterize the deformation between a template and target shape [72] [73].
• Atlas Construction: Methods like Deterministic Atlas Analysis (DAA) iteratively estimate an optimal atlas shape by minimizing the total deformation energy needed to map it onto all specimens, eliminating the need for standard landmarks [53].
• Control Points: Reference points guide shape comparison, with deformation momenta calculated at these points providing the basis for comparing shape variation [53].

The conservation of momentum property enables encoding of entire geodesic paths, allowing linear statistical techniques like principal component analysis to be applied to the initial momentum for shape analysis [73].

Quantitative Performance Benchmarking

Comparative Analysis on Mammalian Crania

A large-scale study comparing DAA (an LDDMM application) with traditional landmarking using 322 mammalian specimens across 180 families revealed critical performance differences:

Table 1: Methodological Comparison of Landmark-Based and Landmark-Free Approaches

Aspect	Traditional Landmarking	LDDMM (DAA)
Data Requirements	Homologous points required	Surface meshes (closed/open)
Labor Intensity	High (manual/semi-automated)	Low (automated)
Operator Bias	Susceptible	Minimal
Scalability	Limited by landmark identification	High for large datasets
Phylogenetic Scope	Limited across disparate taxa	Broad taxonomic coverage
Shape Representation	Discrete points	Dense surface correspondences
Output	Procrustes coordinates	Momenta vectors

Table 2: Performance Metrics from Mammalian Cranial Study [53]

Performance Metric	Traditional Landmarking	DAA (Kernel 20mm)	Correlation Between Methods
Phylogenetic Signal	Comparable estimates	Similar but varying estimates	Significant after standardization
Morphological Disparity	Established baseline	Comparable patterns	Improved with Poisson reconstruction
Evolutionary Rates	Reference values	Similar estimates	Varying by taxonomic group
Taxonomic Specificity	Consistent across groups	Challenges with Primates/Cetacea	Differences in specific clades
Control Points/Landmarks	~200-400 landmarks	45-1,782 control points	Dependent on kernel width

Cross-Annotation Face Alignment Performance

The LDDMM-Face framework demonstrates remarkable flexibility in facial landmark prediction across annotation schemes:

Table 3: LDDMM-Face Performance Across Datasets and Annotation Schemes [72]

Dataset	Standard Training	LDDMM-Face (Sparse-to-Dense)	Cross-Dataset Performance
300W (68 landmarks)	Standard benchmarks	~95% of full annotation accuracy	Maintains >90% accuracy
WFLW (98 landmarks)	State-of-the-art	~92% of full annotation accuracy	Consistent cross-dataset
HELEN (194 landmarks)	Specialized models	Predicts dense from sparse (65%+ points)	Handles annotation mismatch
COFW-68	Task-specific	Effective sparse supervision	Robust to occlusion
AFLW	Limited landmarks	Generalizes across schemes	Maintains topology

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Protocol for Traditional Landmarking with Semi-Landmarks

The established methodology for comprehensive shape capture combines fixed landmarks with sliding semi-landmarks:

• Fixed Landmark Digitization: Precisely locate 10 fixed anatomical landmarks on a template specimen using software such as Viewbox 4.0 [6].
• Semi-Landmark Distribution: Distribute 200 semi-landmarks across the surface of interest, organized into patches for optimal coverage [6].
• Template Warping: Project semi-landmarks from the template to each specimen in the dataset using Thin Plate Spline (TPS) warping based on bending energy minimization [6].
• Landmark Sliding: Allow semi-landmarks to slide tangentially along the surface to ensure optimal homology across specimens while minimizing distortion [6].
• Generalized Procrustes Analysis: Perform GPA on all landmark coordinates to remove variation due to translation, rotation, and scale [6].
• Principal Component Analysis: Conduct PCA on aligned coordinates to identify dominant axes of shape variation [6].

This protocol's reliability must be validated through intra- and inter-operator repeatability tests using metrics like Lin's Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC) [6].

Protocol for Deterministic Atlas Analysis (DAA)

The LDDMM-based DAA pipeline follows a distinct automated workflow:

• Mesh Standardization: Apply Poisson surface reconstruction to create watertight, closed surfaces for all specimens, crucial when handling mixed imaging modalities [53].
• Initial Template Selection: Select an initial template mesh (e.g., Arctictis binturong for mammalian crania) for atlas generation, testing multiple candidates to assess bias [53].
• Atlas Generation: Iteratively estimate the optimal atlas shape by minimizing the total deformation energy required to map it onto all specimens [53].
• Kernel Width Parameterization: Set kernel width parameter (e.g., 10.0mm, 20.0mm, 40.0mm) controlling spatial extent of deformations and number of control points [53].
• Control Point Generation: Generate 45-1,782 control points (depending on kernel width) initially evenly distributed within ambient space surrounding the atlas [53].
• Momentum Calculation: Compute momentum vectors for each specimen representing optimal deformation trajectory for aligning atlas with each specimen [53].
• Shape Analysis: Apply kernel Principal Component Analysis (kPCA) to visualize and explore covariation in the momenta-based shape data [53].

Protocol for LDDMM-Face Implementation

The LDDMM-Face framework adapts this approach for facial alignment tasks:

• Boundary Curve Representation: Represent facial geometry using boundary curves where most facial landmarks naturally reside [72].
• Diffeomorphic Registration: Formulate face alignment as a diffeomorphic registration problem between an initial face and the true face [72].
• Momentum Estimation: Employ a momentum estimator network to predict initial momentum parameters rather than direct coordinate regression [72].
• Deformation Layer: Integrate a deformation layer that applies LDDMM simultaneously for curves and landmarks to localize facial landmarks [72].
• Cross-Annotation Prediction: Leverage the diffeomorphic property to predict landmarks not included in training through consistent geometric transformation [72].

Figure 1: Comparative Workflow for Landmark-Based and Landmark-Free Shape Analysis

Software and Computational Tools

Table 4: Essential Software Tools for Morphometric Analysis

Tool Name	Application	Key Features	Method Compatibility
Deformetrica	Diffeomorphic registration	Implements DAA with atlas generation	Primary LDDMM
Viewbox 4.0	Landmark digitization	Fixed & semi-landmark placement	Traditional landmarking
ITK-SNAP	Image segmentation	Semi-automatic 3D mesh extraction	Both methods
GPSA	Surface analysis	Landmark-free surface superimposition	Alternative landmark-free
R (geomorph)	Statistical analysis	Procrustes ANOVA, PCA	Both methods
ELD	Unsupervised landmark detection	Neural-network-guided TPS	Bridge methodology

Critical Technical Parameters

Successful implementation requires careful attention to key parameters:

• Kernel Width (LDDMM): Controls spatial deformation scale (10-40mm typical); smaller values capture finer details but increase computational load [53].
• Control Point Density: Ranges from 45-1,782 points; higher density improves shape resolution but risks overfitting [53].
• Landmark Types: Balance of Type I, II, and III landmarks; inclusion of sliding semi-landmarks for complex curves [6].
• Template Selection: Critical for DAA; should represent morphological central tendency without extreme specialization [53].
• Mesh Topology: Watertight, closed meshes required for consistent performance; Poisson reconstruction addresses modality mixing [53].

Discussion and Implementation Guidelines

Performance and Applicability Considerations

The benchmarking evidence indicates specific strengths and limitations for each approach:

• Traditional landmarking maintains advantages for focused comparisons of homologous structures where precise biological correspondence is essential, particularly in intraspecific studies or when analyzing specific functional complexes [6].
• LDDMM methods excel in large-scale macroevolutionary studies across disparate taxa, handling datasets of hundreds of specimens where manual landmarking becomes prohibitive [53].
• The cross-annotation capability of LDDMM-Face demonstrates particular promise for integrating diverse datasets with different annotation schemes, overcoming a significant limitation in collaborative research environments [72].
• Computational demands vary substantially; traditional methods require extensive human effort but moderate computing resources, while LDDMM approaches automate human effort but demand significant computational power for diffeomorphic mapping [53] [72].

Recommendations for Method Selection

Selection criteria should prioritize methodological alignment with research goals:

• Choose traditional landmarking when analyzing closely related species with clear homologies, working with specific anatomical substructures, or when research questions require explicit biological correspondence at discrete points [6].
• Opt for LDDMM approaches when tackling broad phylogenetic comparisons, analyzing smooth or featureless surfaces lacking clear landmarks, processing large datasets (>100 specimens), or requiring integration across differently annotated datasets [53] [72].
• Consider hybrid approaches by using LDDMM for initial large-scale screening and traditional methods for focused analysis of specific structural elements [53].

The benchmarking analysis reveals that both traditional landmarking and landmark-free LDDMM approaches offer distinct advantages for shape analysis in identification research. Traditional methods provide biological precision through explicit homology, while LDDMM offers scalability and automation for large-scale comparative studies. The choice between methodologies should be guided by research scope, dataset characteristics, and analytical objectives rather than treating them as mutually exclusive alternatives.

Future methodological development should focus on hybrid approaches that leverage the strengths of both paradigms, standardized benchmarking datasets to enable direct comparison across studies, and improved interoperability between software implementations. As landmark-free methods mature and address current challenges in handling specific taxonomic groups and morphological extremes, they hold significant potential to expand the scope and scale of morphometric studies in evolutionary biology, biomedical research, and beyond.

In the discipline of geometric morphometrics (GM), the quantification of shape variation is foundational to research across evolutionary biology, palaeontology, and systematics. The powerful suite of GM tools allows researchers to move beyond qualitative descriptions to statistically robust analyses of form. However, the validity of any morphological study hinges on rigorously evaluating the performance of the methods and the signals they extract. This guide provides an in-depth technical framework for quantifying this performance, focusing on key statistical metrics—accuracy, precision, and phylogenetic signal—within the context of identification research. Proper application of these metrics is critical for testing taxonomic hypotheses, delineating species boundaries, and interpreting evolutionary patterns from shape data, ensuring that research conclusions are both reliable and scientifically defensible.

Core Performance Metrics in Geometric Morphometrics

The performance of a geometric morphometric analysis can be broken down into several key metrics, each addressing a different aspect of reliability and power. The table below summarizes the core metrics essential for a robust GM study.

Table 1: Core Performance Metrics in Geometric Morphometrics

Metric	Definition	Interpretation in GM Context	Common Analytical Methods
Accuracy	The closeness of a measured or inferred shape value to its true value.	High accuracy indicates that the estimated shapes or group classifications are correct, not biased by method or sampling.	Discriminant Function Analysis (DFA), cross-validation, comparison to known specimens or molecular data [14] [47].
Precision	The closeness of repeated measurements of the same object to each other (reproducibility).	High precision indicates low measurement error, which is crucial for detecting subtle shape differences.	Procrustes ANOVA, analysis of intra- and inter-observer error, landmark repeatability tests [17].
Phylogenetic Signal	The degree to which related species resemble each other more than they resemble species drawn at random from the same tree.	A strong signal indicates that shape evolution is constrained by phylogeny; a weak signal suggests adaptation or convergence.	Mantel test, ( K_{mult} ) statistic, comparison of models with and without phylogenetic correction [74].
Procrustes Distance	The square root of the sum of squared differences between the coordinates of two superimposed shapes.	A measure of the absolute magnitude of shape difference between specimens or group means.	Permutation tests (PROTEST) on Procrustes distances to assess statistical significance of group differences [17] [47].
Mahalanobis Distance	A multivariate distance measure that accounts for the covariance structure within groups.	Used in classification; a larger distance between groups indicates better separation in the multivariate space.	Discriminant Function Analysis (DFA); permutation tests on Mahalanobis distances [47].

Accuracy and Precision in Taxonomic Identification

In practical terms, accuracy in GM is often evaluated by testing how well unknown specimens can be classified into their correct, pre-defined groups. For instance, a study on isolated fossil shark teeth successfully used GM to validate a priori qualitative taxonomic identifications at the genus level, demonstrating the method's accuracy in separating morphologically similar taxa [14]. This is frequently quantified using the correct classification rate from a Discriminant Function Analysis (DFA).

Precision, on the other hand, is a prerequisite for accuracy. It is assessed by quantifying measurement error. A well-designed study will evaluate the impact of the number of landmarks and images on the Procrustes distance, ensuring that the observed shape variation is biological and not an artifact of low-resolution digitization [17]. High precision is particularly critical when the research goal is to detect fine-scale shape differences, such as those associated with sexual dimorphism or early-stage pregnancies in wildlife [16] [17].

Quantifying Phylogenetic Signal

Many biological shapes are not independent data points; they are products of a shared evolutionary history. Ignoring this phylogenetic non-independence can lead to spurious results and inflated error rates [74]. The phylogenetic signal quantifies the tendency for evolutionarily closer species to exhibit more similar morphologies.

The statistical framework for phylogenetically informed prediction has been shown to significantly outperform methods that ignore phylogeny. Simulations have demonstrated a two- to three-fold improvement in prediction performance when phylogenetic relationships are explicitly incorporated into models [74]. This makes phylogenetically informed prediction with weakly correlated traits roughly equivalent to predictive equations using strongly correlated traits but without phylogenetic context. Robust metrics like ( K_{mult} ) are used to test for this signal, and analyses should employ Phylogenetic Generalized Least Squares (PGLS) or similar comparative methods to ensure that hypotheses about adaptation and convergence are tested correctly [74].

Experimental Protocols for Method Validation

This section provides a detailed methodology for a typical validation study that assesses the performance of a GM protocol for identifying biological groups.

Protocol: Validating a Geometric Morphometric Protocol for Group Discrimination

Application Context: This protocol is designed to test whether a GM analysis can reliably detect distinct groups, such as species, sexes, or individuals in different reproductive states. The following workflow diagrams the core stages of this experimental validation.

Stage 1: Study Design and Data Acquisition

• Define Groups and Sample Size: Clearly define the a priori groups to be tested (e.g., species, sexes). The sample size per group should be optimized to achieve statistical power. A pilot study can determine the minimum number of specimens and landmarks needed. For instance, a study on killer whales determined that 6 landmarks and 2 images per individual were sufficient to maximize body shape differences between reproductive stages [17].
• Image Acquisition: Capture high-resolution, standardized images of all specimens. For 3D objects like skulls, this involves a rigorous photogrammetry protocol:
  • Setup: Use a fixed camera on a tripod, a turntable, and a light-diffusing box to ensure even illumination and minimize shadows [75].
  • Photography: Take a minimum of 90-120 images per specimen, rotating it systematically by ~20° between shots to ensure 50% image overlap. Perform multiple rotations on different orthogonal axes for complete 3D coverage [75].
• Landmark Digitization: Using software such as TPSDig2, digitize two types of points on all images [14] [47]:
  • Homologous Landmarks: Anatomically corresponding points (e.g., the tip of a tooth, the base of a seta). A study on thrips used 11 landmarks on the head and 10 on the thorax [47].
  • Semilandmarks: Points placed along curves and surfaces with no discrete homology to capture outlines. They are slid to minimize bending energy during superimposition [14].

Stage 2: Data Processing and Primary Shape Analysis

• Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA): In software like MorphoJ or the geomorph R package, perform a GPA to superimpose all landmark configurations. This step removes the effects of size, position, and orientation, isolating pure shape variables for analysis [47].
• Principal Component Analysis (PCA): Run a PCA on the Procrustes-aligned coordinates to visualize the major axes of shape variation within the dataset and explore the distribution of groups in morphospace [47].
• Calculate Distances: Compute the Procrustes and Mahalanobis distances between group means. These distances provide the raw metrics for testing group separation.

Stage 3: Performance Quantification and Statistical Testing

• Statistical Significance of Group Differences:
  • Use a Permutation Test (with 10,000 iterations) on the Procrustes distances to determine if the observed shape difference between groups is statistically significant (p < 0.05) [17] [47].
  • Similarly, perform a Discriminant Function Analysis (DFA) and use permutation tests on the Mahalanobis distances to assess the distinctiveness of groups in the multivariate space [47].
• Classification Accuracy:
  • Perform a cross-validated DFA. This procedure classifies each specimen into a group based on the discriminant functions built from all other specimens. The resulting correct classification rate is a key metric of the protocol's accuracy for identification [14].
• Assessment of Phylogenetic Signal:
  • If the study involves multiple species, test for phylogenetic signal in the shape data using the ( K_{mult} ) statistic in a package like geomorph [74]. A significant signal indicates that phylogenetic history must be accounted for in subsequent comparative analyses using Phylogenetic Generalized Least Squares (PGLS) models.

A successful geometric morphometrics study relies on a combination of specialized software, hardware, and statistical tools. The following table details the essential components of the modern GM toolkit.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for Geometric Morphometrics

Category	Item	Specific Examples	Function in GM Research
Software	Landmark Digitization	TPSDig2 [14] [47]	Allows for precise placement of landmarks and semilandmarks on 2D images.
	Shape Analysis & Statistics	MorphoJ [16] [47], R package geomorph [47]	Performs core GM analyses: Procrustes superimposition, PCA, DFA, and phylogenetic comparative methods.
	3D Model Reconstruction	Agisoft Metashape [75]	Processes multiple 2D photographs into high-fidelity 3D models for landmarking.
Hardware	Image Acquisition	High-resolution camera (e.g., Nikon Z6 II), tripod, turntable [75]	Creates standardized digital images of specimens, which is the foundation of all subsequent data.
	Lighting & Setup	Light-diffusing box, adjustable directional lights [75]	Ensures even illumination, eliminates harsh shadows, and is critical for high-precision 3D photogrammetry.
Statistical Framework	Phylogenetic Comparative Methods	Phylogenetically Informed Prediction (PIP) [74]	Provides a superior framework for predicting trait values and testing evolutionary hypotheses by explicitly incorporating phylogenetic trees, outperforming standard predictive equations.
	Performance Metrics	Procrustes Distance, Mahalanobis Distance, Permutation Tests [17] [47]	Quantifies the magnitude of shape differences and provides statistical confidence in the results.

Advanced Considerations and Future Directions

As the field advances, new computational approaches are pushing the boundaries of geometric morphometrics. Automated phenotyping methods, such as morphVQ and auto3DGM, are being developed to overcome the limitations of manual landmarking. These "landmark-free" techniques use descriptor learning and functional maps to establish correspondence across entire biological surfaces, capturing more comprehensive morphological detail and reducing observer bias [2]. When employing these methods, performance quantification remains paramount; the resulting shape descriptors must be validated against traditional GM or biological classifications to ensure their accuracy and biological relevance [2].

Furthermore, the visualization of complex results, such as finite-element analysis, is evolving. Studies show that the traditional Rainbow colour map is problematic for representing biomechanical data due to perceptual non-uniformity and inaccessibility for those with colour vision deficiencies. It is recommended to adopt perceptually uniform colour maps (e.g., Viridis, Batlow) that more accurately convey underlying data distributions and are accessible to a wider audience [8].

Conclusion

Geometric morphometrics has firmly established itself as an indispensable tool for precise identification across biomedical and biological disciplines. By providing a rigorous, quantitative framework for analyzing shape, it moves beyond subjective description to deliver reproducible, data-driven insights. The methodology's strength is amplified when its foundational principles are correctly applied, its methodological pipelines are optimized for efficiency, and its results are rigorously validated against established techniques. The future of GM points toward greater automation through landmark-free methods and deeper integration with artificial intelligence, promising to unlock even more powerful applications in stratified drug delivery, forensic identification, and evolutionary biology. For researchers and drug development professionals, mastering geometric morphometrics is no longer a niche skill but a critical competency for advancing personalized medicine and objective biological profiling.

References

• 1. Geometric morphometrics in anthropology [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_morphometrics_in_anthropology]
• 2. A novel approach to geometric morphometrics [https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009061]
• 3. The Novel Application of Geometric Morphometrics with ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8247/14/10/953]
• 4. A Geometric Morphometrics Approach to the Study of Natural ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11013130/]
• 5. Reworking Geometric Morphometrics into a Methodology ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11692-023-09607-2]
• 6. A Geometric Morphometrics Approach for Predicting Olfactory ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12565324/]
• 7. Geometric morphometrics in the cloud [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1567134819300152]
• 8. colour maps for finite-element analysis in palaeontological ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8596014/]
• 9. Differences between sliding semi-landmark methods in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2100233/]
• 10. Selection of landmarks and semilandmarks in fishes for geometric ... [https://scientiamarina.revistas.csic.es/index.php/scientiamarina/article/view/1630]
• 11. GUSTA ME - Procrustes analysis [https://sites.google.com/site/mb3gustame/other-methods/procrustes-analysis]
• 12. Procrustes superimposition [https://www.virtual-anthropology.com/virtual-anthropology/compare/geometric-morphometrics/procrustes-superimposition/]
• 13. ACSII II Guide to Geometric Morphometrics in MorphoJ [http://webhome.auburn.edu/~armbrjw/gmguide/Geometric_Morphometrics_Guide/Procrustes.html]
• 14. Geometric morphometrics on fossil shark teeth [https://palaeo-electronica.org/content/2025/5603-geometric-morphometrics-on-fossil-shark-teeth]
• 15. Protocol of Geometric Morphometrics for Teratogenicity ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38285359/]
• 16. Geometric morphometric analysis of body shape and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0940960225002869]
• 17. A geometric morphometric approach for detecting different ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-86793-3]
• 18. Geometric morphometrics [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B978012815764000023X]
• 19. Sample Size and Geometric Morphometrics Methodology ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10833145/]
• 20. Morphospace [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982221011441]
• 21. Geometric Morphometrics sheds light on the systematics ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10540071/]
• 22. Biases of Principal Component Analysis (PCA) in Physical ... [https://elifesciences.org/reviewed-preprints/94685]
• 23. Defining, Reconstructing and Investigating Shape Through a ... [https://journal.caa-international.org/articles/10.5334/jcaa.161]
• 24. ACSII II Guide to Geometric Morphometrics in MorphoJ [http://webhome.auburn.edu/~armbrjw/gmguide/Geometric_Morphometrics_Guide/PCA.html]
• 25. The Novel Application of Geometric Morphometrics with ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34681177/]
• 26. Pathologies of Between-Groups Principal Components ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11692-019-09484-8]
• 27. Quantitative Analysis of Fish Morphology Through Landmark ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11540051/]
• 28. Geometric morphometrics for the study of facial ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-46330-5]
• 29. Geometric Morphometrics as an Analytical Tool in Plant ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/14/5/808]
• 30. Are geometric morphometric analyses replicable? Evaluating ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7140992/]
• 31. Use of scalation landmarks in geometric of... morphometrics [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33055700/]
• 32. A protocol for the creation of useful geometric shape ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4141713/]
• 33. Building and Visualising Ordinations of Shape Data in R ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12178081/]
• 34. A Step-by-Step Guide for Geometric Morphometrics of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6191499/]
• 35. Geometric Morphometrics - The Polly Lab [https://www.pollylab.org/courses/geometric-morphometrics]
• 36. Data acquisition [https://www.sbmorphometrics.org/soft-dataacq.html]
• 37. Geometric Morphometrics Tutorial [https://sampenrice.com/geometric-morphometrics-tutorial/]
• 38. MorphoJ [https://morphometrics.uk/MorphoJ_page.html]
• 39. MorphoJ User's Guide - Klingenberg lab web site [https://morphometrics.uk/MorphoJ_guide/]
• 40. Geometric Morphometrics in R - geomorph R package [https://geomorphr.github.io/GMcourse/index.html]
• 41. Morpho and Rvcg – Shape Analysis in R: R-Packages for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128104934000110]
• 42. Zebrafish Male vs Female: sex in Drug discovery [https://www.zeclinics.com/blog/zebrafish-male-vs-female-drug-discovery]
• 43. Discriminating Sex in Zebrafish (Danio rerio) Using ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30694734/]
• 44. Sexual dimorphism in zebrafish liver proteins and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-18599-2]
• 45. AI-Driven Drug Discovery With Zebrafish In Vivo Data [https://www.zeclinics.com/blog/ai-driven-drug-discovery-zebrafish]
• 46. Zebrafish Neurological Disease Models [https://www.zeclinics.com/blog/zebrafish-neurological-disease-models]
• 47. geometric morphometrics of head and thorax shapes in ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/insect-science/articles/10.3389/finsc.2025.1558242/full]
• 48. Quantitative morphometric analysis of Sitophilus species ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022474X25002462]
• 49. When Shape Defines: Geometric Morphometrics Applied to ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/17/10/680]
• 50. Morphometric Analysis of Tetropium Species (Coleoptera ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12028269/]
• 51. Geometric morphometrics analysis of forensically important ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11910162/]
• 52. The use of Geometric morphometry to illustrate variations ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468227625004843]
• 53. Assessing the application of landmark-free morphometrics to ... [https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-025-02377-9]
• 54. A landmark-free morphometrics pipeline for high-resolution ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7969589/]
• 55. Advances in the Development of Shape Similarity Methods ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/chemistry/articles/10.3389/fchem.2018.00315/full]
• 56. The Importance of Discerning Shape in Molecular ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2854656/]
• 57. AI recognition of cell shape could revolutionise drug ... [https://b-s-h.org.uk/about-us/news/ai-recognition-of-cell-shape-could-revolutionise-drug-development]
• 58. The use of the geometric morphometric method to illustrate ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7568715/]
• 59. A Review of Deep Learning-based Multi-modal Medical ... [https://openbioinformaticsjournal.com/VOLUME/18/ELOCATOR/e18750362370697/FULLTEXT/]
• 60. Modality-projection universal model for comprehensive full ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12552709/]
• 61. Addressing data heterogeneity in distributed medical ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64459-y]
• 62. A practical, step-by-step, guide to taxonomic comparisons ... [https://europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu/index.php/ejt/article/view/2527]
• 63. Resolving sample identification bias in morphometrics ... [https://elifesciences.org/reviewed-preprints/94685v1]
• 64. Bolstering geometric morphometrics sample sizes with ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8128762/]
• 65. Geometric morphometrics approach for classifying ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-85718-4]
• 66. Principal component and discriminant analyses as powerful ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5705141/]
• 67. Application of Shape Analyses to Recording Structures ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2021.667183/full]
• 68. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Coxal Bone Measurements ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2079-7737/14/7/866]
• 69. Deep learning versus human assessors: forensic sex ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-81718-y]
• 70. A review of the literature on the applications of machine ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073825002178]
• 71. A Landmark-Free Method for Three-Dimensional Shape ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0150368]
• 72. LDDMM-Face: Large deformation diffeomorphic metric ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031320324003200]
• 73. Large Deformation Diffeomorphism and Momentum Based ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2848689/]
• 74. Phylogenetically informed predictions outperform ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-61036-1]
• 75. Protocol for 3D photogrammetry and morphological ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11787561/]