Evaluating Geometric Morphometrics: A Performance Review for Classification and Identification in Biomedical Research

Abstract

Geometric morphometrics (GM) has emerged as a powerful tool for quantifying and analyzing shape variation, with significant implications for identification and classification tasks in biomedical research. This article provides a comprehensive performance evaluation of GM, exploring its foundational principles and its application across diverse fields—from classifying honey bee subspecies to personalizing nose-to-brain drug delivery and assessing nutritional status. We delve into critical methodological considerations, including landmark types and data alignment via Generalized Procrustes Analysis. The review further addresses common troubleshooting scenarios and optimization strategies, such as dimensionality reduction techniques to enhance classification accuracy. Finally, we present a rigorous validation and comparative analysis, weighing GM against alternative methods like classical morphometrics and computer vision, and discussing its reliability and limitations. This synthesis aims to equip researchers and drug development professionals with the knowledge to effectively implement GM in their work.

Core Principles and Scope of Geometric Morphometrics in Identification

Geometric morphometrics (GM) has revolutionized the quantitative analysis of biological form by preserving geometric relationships throughout statistical analysis. This review examines the core methodologies of landmark-based GM, focusing on its performance for species identification and discrimination. We evaluate the achievements of traditional Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA)-based approaches alongside emerging innovations, including functional data analysis and machine learning integration. Experimental data demonstrates GM's power to discriminate cryptic species with accuracy rates exceeding 80-90% in controlled conditions, though effectiveness depends critically on methodological choices regarding landmark selection, sample size, and data processing protocols. The ongoing integration of GM with genomic, developmental, and ecological research promises a more comprehensive understanding of morphological evolution and its applications across biological anthropology, taxonomy, and medical research.

Geometric morphometrics represents a paradigm shift from traditional measurement-based approaches to quantitative shape analysis. Unlike classical morphometrics that relied on linear distances, ratios, or angles, GM preserves the full geometry of anatomical structures throughout the statistical analysis [1] [2]. This methodological revolution, cemented over the past three decades, enables researchers to capture, analyze, and visualize shape variation in ways previously impossible [1]. The foundational principle of GM is that biological form can be quantified using Cartesian coordinates of anatomically corresponding points (landmarks), and that shape can be statistically defined as the geometric information that remains after removing the effects of position, orientation, and scale [1] [2].

The power of GM lies in its ability to detect subtle morphological variations often undetectable by traditional morphological studies, making it particularly valuable for discriminating cryptic species and analyzing intraspecific variation [3] [4]. Applications now span evolutionary biology, taxonomy, medical diagnostics, forensics, and anthropology [1] [2]. In systematic biology, GM has become a fast and low-cost candidate for identifying cryptic species through quantitative comparison of organismal shapes [3]. This review examines the transformation of raw landmark coordinates into meaningful shape variables, evaluates methodological performance across applications, and explores emerging innovations that are expanding GM's analytical capabilities.

Core Methodologies: From Physical Specimens to Shape Variables

Landmarks and Semilandmarks

The GM workflow begins with data collection through anatomical landmarks—discrete, biologically homologous points that can be precisely located across all specimens in a study [2]. Landmarks are typically classified by their anatomical properties (Type I: juxtaposition of tissues; Type II: maxima of curvature; Type III: extremal points) [1]. For complex curved surfaces where discrete landmarks are insufficient, semilandmarks (sliding landmarks) allow quantification of outline and surface morphology by capturing homologous curves and surfaces between fixed landmarks [1] [2]. The sliding process minimizes bending energy or Procrustes distance, effectively making semilandmarks geometrically homologous [1].

Table 1: Landmark Types in Geometric Morphometrics

Landmark Type	Definition	Examples	Constraints
Type I	Discrete anatomical points defined by tissue juxtaposition	Foramina, suture intersections	Highest precision and homology
Type II	Points of maximum curvature	Cusp tips, apex of bends	Moderate precision
Type III	Extremal points	Most protruding points	Can be influenced by other structures
Semilandmarks	Points along curves and surfaces	Outline contours, surface patches	Require sliding algorithms to establish homology

The Procrustes Superimposition Framework

Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA) forms the core computational procedure of most GM workflows [1] [2]. This mathematical procedure removes non-shape variation through three sequential operations:

• Translation: Configurations are centered to a common origin (usually the centroid).
• Scaling: Configurations are scaled to unit centroid size (the square root of the sum of squared distances of all landmarks from the centroid).
• Rotation: Configurations are rotated to minimize the sum of squared distances between corresponding landmarks (Procrustes distance).

The resulting Procrustes shape coordinates exist in a curved, non-Euclidean space (Kendall's shape space) but are typically projected to a linear tangent space for subsequent multivariate statistical analysis [1]. This preservation of geometric relationships enables visualization of statistical results as actual shapes or deformations, maintaining the crucial link between statistical output and biological meaning [1].

Shape Variables and Visualization

After Procrustes alignment, shape is typically represented by partial warp scores (from a thin-plate spline decomposition) or relative warps (principal components of shape variation) [3]. These variables capture the multidimensional nature of shape variation while allowing application of standard multivariate statistics. The thin-plate spline interpolation between landmarks enables visualization of shape changes as continuous deformation grids [5] [2], famously reviving D'Arcy Thompson's transformative approach [2]. Modern implementations include vector displacement maps, heat maps of shape change magnitude, and 3D surface models [5].

Experimental Performance: Discrimination Accuracy and Methodological Challenges

Cryptic Species Discrimination

GM has demonstrated remarkable sensitivity in discriminating morphologically cryptic species across diverse taxa. In entomology, GM approaches have successfully distinguished cryptic species of Triatominae, sandflies, parasitoid hymenoptera, fruit flies, and screwworm flies [3]. Classification accuracy depends critically on taxonomic group, landmark selection, and methodological factors, but well-designed studies typically achieve accuracy rates between 80-98% [3].

Table 2: Performance of Geometric Morphometrics in Species Discrimination

Taxonomic Group	Landmark Type	Sample Size	Discrimination Accuracy	Key Factors
Tsetse flies (Glossina spp.)	Wing landmarks	44 specimens/species	77-95% (Procrustes)	User effect significantly reduces accuracy [3]
European white oaks	Leaf landmarks	22 trees/population	Significant population discrimination	Allometry control improves accuracy [6]
Vespertilionid bats	Cranial & mandibular landmarks	70-80 specimens/species	Significant species discrimination	View and element choice affect results [4]
Human facial morphology	3D facial landmarks	Hundreds to thousands	High population-level discrimination	Ethical considerations essential [1]

Experimental protocols for species discrimination typically follow a standardized workflow: (1) careful landmark selection capturing relevant morphology; (2) GPA of all specimens; (3) dimension reduction via principal components analysis; (4) discriminant analysis with cross-validation; and (5) visualization of discriminatory shape features [3] [6] [4]. The leave-one-out cross-validation approach provides a robust estimate of predictive classification accuracy [6].

The User Effect and Measurement Error

A critical methodological concern in GM is the "user effect"—the increased measurement error when different researchers digitize the same landmarks [3]. Experimental data shows that repeatability (R) systematically decreases when two users are compared versus repeated measurements by a single user [3]. In Glossina species, repeatability dropped from approximately 0.81 to 0.64 between single-user and multiple-user scenarios [3]. This measurement error propagates through analysis, with classification error rates increasing dramatically—from 2% to 18% for Mahalanobis-based classification in some species [3].

Sample Size Considerations

Recent research demonstrates that reduced sample sizes significantly impact mean shape estimation and increase shape variance [4]. In bat crania studies, smaller samples resulted in greater distance from the "true" mean shape (estimated from large samples) and inflated shape variance estimates [4]. Centroid size estimates stabilized at smaller sample sizes (~20 specimens) than shape estimates, but adequate characterization of morphological variation required larger samples [4]. These findings have important implications for study design, particularly for analyses of intraspecific variation or discrimination of closely related taxa.

View and Element Selection in 2D GM

For 2D geometric morphometrics, the choice of anatomical view and element significantly impacts biological conclusions [4]. Analyses of bat crania and mandibles found that shape differences were not always consistent across views (lateral, ventral) or skeletal elements (cranium, mandible) [4]. Surprisingly, different views of the same structure were not always strongly correlated, suggesting that comprehensive morphological assessment requires multiple perspectives [4].

Emerging Innovations and Future Directions

Functional Data and Elastic Shape Analysis

Recent methodological innovations incorporate functional data analysis (FDA) into the GM framework [7]. These approaches model landmark trajectories as multivariate functions rather than discrete points, potentially capturing more nuanced shape information [7]. The square-root velocity function (SRVF) framework enables elastic shape analysis that separately handles amplitude and phase variation [7]. Simulation studies comparing eight analytical pipelines (traditional GM plus seven FDA variants) demonstrate the particular effectiveness of arc-length parameterization with elastic SRVF alignment for complex shape discrimination tasks [7].

Cloud-Based Platforms and Machine Learning

Cloud-based GM platforms like XYOM represent another innovation, offering platform-independent analysis without local software installation [8]. These systems facilitate collaboration and standardization across research teams. Concurrently, machine learning approaches (support vector machines, artificial neural networks) are being integrated with GM for automated classification, potentially enhancing discrimination of complex morphological patterns [8] [9]. In nutritional assessment research, GM combined with machine learning classifies childhood nutritional status from arm shape photographs with accuracy sufficient for field screening [9].

Out-of-Sample Classification Protocols

A significant methodological advancement addresses the challenge of classifying new specimens not included in the original study sample [9]. Traditional GM classification uses leave-one-out cross-validation on jointly aligned specimens, but practical applications often require classifying completely new individuals. Recent work proposes template-based registration methods where new specimens are aligned to a representative template from the reference sample, enabling application of existing classification functions [9]. This approach has proven effective for nutritional assessment from arm photographs, with performance dependent on template selection and allometry control [9].

Table 3: Essential Software and Resources for Geometric Morphometrics Research

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function	Access
MorphoJ	Desktop software	Comprehensive GM analysis	Free download [10]
tpsDig2	Desktop software	Landmark digitization	Free download
geomorph (R package)	R library	GM statistics and visualization	Free [4]
XYOM	Cloud platform	Online GM analysis	Web-based [8]
Landmark Editor	Desktop software	3D landmark collection	Free download
Shape	Desktop software	Relative warp analysis	Free download

Geometric morphometrics has evolved from a specialized methodology to a mainstream analytical framework for biological shape analysis. The transformation of raw landmark coordinates into Procrustes shape variables preserves geometric relationships throughout statistical analysis, enabling powerful discrimination of subtle morphological patterns across diverse applications. Experimental evidence confirms GM's effectiveness in cryptic species identification, with accuracy rates exceeding 80-90% in controlled conditions, though performance depends critically on methodological factors including landmark selection, sample size, and control of measurement error. Emerging innovations in functional data analysis, cloud computing, and machine learning integration are expanding GM's capabilities, particularly for complex classification tasks and out-of-sample prediction. As these methodologies continue to develop, GM remains an indispensable tool for quantifying morphological variation across evolutionary biology, taxonomy, anthropology, and medical research.

The Role of Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA) in Standardizing Shape Data

In the fields of biological anthropology, evolutionary biology, and medical imaging, quantitative analysis of shape is fundamental to understanding morphological variation, evolutionary patterns, and diagnostic features. Geometric morphometrics provides a sophisticated framework for capturing and analyzing the geometry of anatomical structures using landmark coordinates. However, raw landmark coordinates contain irrelevant information including position, orientation, and scale, which must be removed to enable meaningful shape comparisons. Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA) has emerged as the predominant statistical method for standardizing shape data by eliminating these extraneous sources of variation while preserving the biologically relevant shape information [1]. Developed by J. C. Gower in 1975 and later adapted for landmark data by Rohlf and Slice in 1990, GPA establishes a common coordinate system that allows direct comparison of shapes across specimens [11] [1]. This standardization process is particularly crucial for performance evaluation in identification research, where distinguishing meaningful morphological signals from methodological noise determines the validity and reliability of scientific conclusions.

The GPA Methodology: Principles and Protocols

Core Mathematical Operations

The GPA algorithm performs a sequence of mathematical transformations that progressively remove non-shape-related variation from landmark configurations. The process begins with translation, where all configurations are mean-centered so their average coordinate location (centroid) coincides with the origin [12]. This step eliminates positional differences between specimens. Next, the algorithm performs scaling, where configurations are standardized to unit centroid size, defined as the square root of the sum of squared distances of each landmark from the centroid [1] [12]. This critical step removes size differences, isolating pure shape information. The final operation involves rotation, where configurations are optimally rotated to minimize the sum of squared distances between corresponding landmarks across all specimens using a least-squares criterion [11] [1].

The iterative GPA algorithm follows these steps: (1) arbitrarily select a reference shape (typically from available instances), (2) superimpose all instances to the current reference shape, (3) compute the mean shape of the current set of superimposed shapes, and (4) if the Procrustes distance between the mean shape and reference exceeds a threshold, set the reference to the mean shape and continue to step 2 [11]. This iterative process continues until convergence is achieved, resulting in a consensus (mean) configuration and Procrustes shape coordinates for each specimen that reside in a curved space known as Kendall's shape space [1] [13].

Handling Semilandmarks and Complex Structures

Traditional GPA works effectively with homologous landmarks, but many biological structures require the inclusion of curves and surfaces characterized by semilandmarks. Modern implementations of GPA, such as the gpagen function in the geomorph R package, extend the methodology to handle these more complex data types [13]. Semilandmarks are slid along their tangent directions or planes during superimposition using either bending energy or Procrustes distance criteria [13]. This advancement significantly expands the applicability of GPA to complex morphological structures like cranial contours, dental arcades, and other biological features lacking sufficient discrete landmarks.

GPA Algorithm Workflow: The iterative process of Generalized Procrustes Analysis for standardizing landmark configurations.

Comparative Analysis of GPA and Alternative Methods

Methodological Comparisons

While GPA represents the standard approach in geometric morphometrics, several alternative methods offer different approaches to shape analysis. Euclidean Distance Matrix Analysis (EDMA) quantifies form in a way that is invariant to changes in location and orientation without requiring registration [1]. Unlike GPA, EDMA does not involve superimposition but instead uses matrices of all inter-landmark distances. This approach avoids the reference dependency of GPA but comes with the trade-off of a more complex geometry of shape or form space and less efficient visualization methods [1]. Multiple Factor Analysis (MFA) and the STATIS method provide alternative multivariate approaches for comparing the results of surveys, interviews, or panels, particularly in sensory science applications [11]. These methods can handle multiple data tables simultaneously but lack GPA's specialized optimization for landmark configurations.

Partial Least Squares (PLS) analysis and canonical variates analysis represent complementary techniques often used after GPA superimposition to examine relationships between shape and other variables or to test for group differences [1] [14]. These methods build upon the standardized shape coordinates generated by GPA rather than serving as direct alternatives. Similarly, relative warps analysis extends GPA by emphasizing either large-scale or small-scale shape variations through the power of the bending energy matrix [15].

Table 1: Comparison of Shape Analysis Methods

Method	Key Features	Invariance Properties	Visualization Efficiency	Primary Applications
GPA	Least-squares superimposition, iterative consensus building	Translation, rotation, scaling (optional)	High (direct visualization of shapes)	Biological morphology, medical imaging, comparative anatomy
EDMA	Form analysis using inter-landmark distances, no superimposition	Translation, rotation	Moderate (no direct coordinate visualization)	Craniofacial studies, skeletal analysis
MFA	Multiple table analysis, statistical integration	Statistical standardization	Variable (statistical visualizations)	Sensory science, survey analysis, panel data
Relative Warps	Multi-scale shape analysis, bending energy matrix	Translation, rotation, scaling	High (visualization at different scales)	Developmental patterns, evolutionary allometry

Performance Metrics and Experimental Evidence

Experimental comparisons between GPA and alternative methods demonstrate distinct performance characteristics across various applications. In a comprehensive study of 3D facial morphology for respirator design, GPA successfully processed 947 subjects with 26 three-dimensional landmarks each, with the first four principal components accounting for 49% of total sample variation after Procrustes superimposition [12]. The study demonstrated that GPA could effectively handle missing data through mean substitution, retaining 72% of specimens with complete data and less than 1% with six or more missing landmarks [12].

Research comparing GPA to EDMA has shown that while both methods capture shape variation effectively, GPA provides superior visualization capabilities and more intuitive interpretation of results [1]. The Procrustes distance metric used in GPA offers a rigorous measure of shape difference with well-understood statistical properties, while EDMA's form space geometry is more complex and less straightforward for biological interpretation [1]. Implementation studies have demonstrated that GPA algorithms consistently converge on a mean configuration regardless of the initial reference choice, ensuring methodological reliability [11] [12].

Table 2: Performance Comparison in Practical Applications

Application Context	Method	Data Structure	Variance Captured (First 4 PCs)	Key Findings
3D Facial Analysis for Respirator Design [12]	GPA with size restoration	947 subjects, 26 3D landmarks	49%	PC1: Overall size (26%); PC2: Face elongation/narrowing (10%); PC3: Orbit shape (8%); PC4: Prognathism (5%)
Biological Morphology [1]	GPA with semilandmarks	Variable landmark/semilandmark configurations	60-85% (typical range)	Effectively captures symmetric and asymmetric components of shape variation
Human Face Shape Analysis [1]	GPA with tangent space projection	3D scans from ALSPAC study	Not specified	Enables decomposition into symmetric and asymmetric components; identifies population variation

Method Selection Guide: Decision pathway for selecting appropriate shape analysis techniques based on research goals.

Implementation and Practical Applications

Software Implementation and Technical Considerations

Generalized Procrustes Analysis is implemented in several specialized software packages and programming libraries. The gpagen function in the geomorph R package represents one of the most comprehensive implementations, supporting both fixed landmarks and sliding semilandmarks on curves and surfaces [13]. This implementation offers two criteria for sliding semilandmarks: minimization of bending energy (default) or Procrustes distance [13]. The procGPA function in the shapes R package provides another robust implementation with options for scaling, reflection, and various tangent coordinate systems [15]. For Python users and machine learning applications, specialized implementations like the WEKA filter for 2D data enable integration of GPA into automated classification pipelines [16].

Technical considerations for successful GPA implementation include handling missing data, convergence criteria specification, and tangent space projection. Research shows that missing landmark data can be addressed through mean substitution or specimen removal, with the former preserving sample variability at the cost of potential bias [12]. Convergence tolerance (typically 1e-4 to 1e-5) must be carefully set to balance computational efficiency and precision [15] [13]. For statistical analysis requiring linear methods, Procrustes coordinates are typically projected into a tangent space, with Euclidean distances in this space approximating Procrustes distances in shape space [13].

Research Applications and Case Studies

GPA has demonstrated particular utility in anthropological and biological identification research. In a landmark study of human facial morphology, GPA enabled decomposition of 3D face shape variation into symmetric and asymmetric components, facilitating investigations of population variation, evolutionary patterns, and developmental stability [1]. This application highlighted GPA's capacity to handle large landmark sets (including semilandmarks) and integrate with quantitative genetic analyses to identify heritable components of facial variation [1].

The NIOSH respirator study exemplifies GPA's practical utility in applied identification research [12]. By analyzing 3D facial scans from 947 respirator users, researchers identified specific patterns of facial shape variation critical for designing protective equipment that accommodates diverse facial morphologies. The GPA-based approach revealed that facial variability extends well beyond the simple length and width dimensions traditionally used in respirator fit panels, explaining why bivariate approaches often fail to adequately represent population diversity [12]. This finding has significant implications for industrial safety and ergonomic design.

In forensic anthropology, GPA has been employed to study dentition-to-lip mouth morphology in South African populations, revealing significant population and sex variation in mouth shape [14]. This research established quantitative relationships between hard and soft tissue features that enhance the accuracy of facial approximation and craniofacial superimposition techniques used in personal identification [14]. Similarly, toxicological studies have utilized GPA to quantify sublethal morphological deformities in Chironomus xanthus larvae exposed to grassland ash, demonstrating GPA's sensitivity in detecting environmentally-induced shape changes [14].

Essential Research Toolkit for GPA Implementation

Table 3: Essential Software and Tools for GPA Implementation

Tool Name	Type/Platform	Key Functions	Application Context
geomorph	R package	GPA with semilandmarks, morphological integration, phylogenetic analyses	Comprehensive morphometric analyses of complex biological structures
shapes	R package	Basic GPA, principal component analysis, relative warps analysis	Standard shape analysis, educational applications
Morpheus	Java-based application	Visualization, data manipulation, GPA implementation	Interactive shape visualization and analysis
WEKA GPA Filter	Java/WEKA component	Supervised and unsupervised GPA for machine learning	Integration of shape data into classification pipelines
INTEGRATE	Unix-based 3D package	3D landmark data management and processing	Processing of 3D scan data from various sources
Parkeol	Parkeol, CAS:514-45-4, MF:C30H50O, MW:426.7 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
Tyrosine betaine	Tyrosine Betaine Research Chemical	Tyrosine betaine for research applications. This product is For Research Use Only (RUO), not for diagnostic or personal use.	Bench Chemicals

Generalized Procrustes Analysis represents a robust, widely-adopted methodology for standardizing shape data across diverse research domains, particularly in identification research where accurate morphological comparison is essential. Its capacity to eliminate non-shape variation while preserving biologically meaningful information makes it superior to alternative methods for landmark-based shape analysis. While EDMA offers invariance without registration and MFA provides integration of multiple data structures, GPA's combination of statistical rigor, intuitive visualization, and implementation flexibility establishes it as the reference method for geometric morphometrics. The continued development of GPA implementations, particularly those handling semilandmarks on curves and surfaces, ensures its ongoing relevance for addressing complex morphological questions in biological, medical, and anthropological research.

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) for Exploring Major Axes of Shape Variation

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is a fundamental unsupervised multivariate statistical method used extensively in geometric morphometrics to explore and visualize the primary patterns of shape variation within complex biological datasets. By transforming potentially correlated shape variables into a set of linearly uncorrelated principal components, PCA allows researchers to reduce dimensionality while preserving essential morphological information. This technique has become indispensable in identification research across various fields, including anthropology, drug discovery, and evolutionary biology, where quantifying and interpreting shape differences is crucial. The application of PCA enables scientists to identify major axes of shape variation, detect outliers, and form hypotheses about the biological factors driving morphological diversity, providing a powerful foundation for performance evaluation in geometric morphometric studies [17] [18] [19].

Theoretical Framework of PCA in Geometric Morphometrics

Mathematical Foundations

PCA operates through a systematic mathematical process that begins with standardizing the raw data to ensure all variables contribute equally to the analysis. The core of PCA involves eigenvalue decomposition of the covariance matrix to identify directions of maximum variance in the data. Specifically, for a dataset ( X ) with mean zero, PCA computes the covariance matrix ( \mathbf{C} = \frac{1}{n-1}X^T X ) and then solves the eigenvalue problem ( \mathbf{C} \mathbf{v}i = \lambdai \mathbf{v}i ), where ( \mathbf{v}i ) represents the eigenvectors (principal components) and ( \lambda_i ) represents the corresponding eigenvalues [20] [21]. The resulting eigenvectors form a new orthogonal basis for the data, with the first principal component (PC1) capturing the maximum possible variance, the second component (PC2) capturing the next highest variance under the constraint of orthogonality to PC1, and so on for subsequent components.

Integration with Geometric Morphometrics

In geometric morphometrics, PCA is typically applied to Procrustes-aligned coordinates after Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA) has removed non-shape variations including size, location, and orientation [22] [23]. This Procrustes-PCA workflow allows researchers to analyze pure shape differences independently of other confounding variables. The principal components derived from this process represent major axes of shape variation within the sample, with each component corresponding to a specific pattern of morphological change that can be visualized as a deformation of the original configuration [17] [24]. This approach has proven particularly valuable for studying complex biological structures where shape contains important taxonomic, functional, or phylogenetic information.

Comparative Analysis of Dimensionality Reduction Techniques

PCA vs. Alternative Methods

While PCA serves as a versatile tool for exploratory shape analysis, several alternative dimensionality reduction techniques offer complementary approaches with distinct advantages and limitations. The table below provides a systematic comparison of PCA against other commonly used methods:

Table 1: Comparison of Dimensionality Reduction Techniques in Morphometric Research

Feature	PCA	t-SNE	LDA	PLS-DA/OPLS-DA
Type	Unsupervised	Unsupervised	Supervised	Supervised
Primary Objective	Maximize variance explanation	Preserve local structures	Maximize class separation	Enhance class separation + remove orthogonal variation
Shape Data Preservation	Global structure	Local neighborhoods	Between-class differences	Predictive components
Interpretability	Moderate	Low (stochastic)	High	High
Computational Efficiency	High	Medium (O(N²))	High	Medium-High
Risk of Overfitting	Low	Medium	Medium	Medium-High
Ideal Application	Exploratory shape analysis	Cluster visualization in complex shapes	Classification based on known groups	Identifying shape biomarkers

Performance Considerations

The performance of PCA relative to alternative methods depends significantly on research objectives and data characteristics. For exploratory analysis of shape variation without predefined groups, PCA's unsupervised nature and computational efficiency make it ideal, with the first few components typically capturing the majority of shape variance [20] [19]. In a study of human mandibular shape variation, the first three principal components captured almost 49% of total shape variation, effectively highlighting differences in width, height, and length proportions, as well as variations in the angle between ramus and corpus [17].

However, when class labels are available and the goal is maximizing separation between known groups, supervised methods like Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) often outperform PCA. LDA explicitly maximizes between-class variance while minimizing within-class variance, achieving up to 91% accuracy in sex classification based on mandibular shape, compared to more generalized variance capture with PCA [17] [21]. For non-linear shape relationships, t-SNE may preserve local structures more effectively, achieving 40-60% increases in clustering accuracy for complex morphological patterns, though at greater computational cost and with potential loss of global structure interpretation [20].

Experimental Protocols and Applications

Standard Workflow for Geometric Morphometrics

The application of PCA in geometric morphometrics follows a structured experimental pipeline that ensures robust and reproducible results:

Table 2: Key Stages in Geometric Morphometric Analysis Using PCA

Stage	Protocol Description	Key Outputs
Data Acquisition	Capture 3D morphological data via CT/CBCT scanning or digital imaging	3D surface models, landmark coordinates
Landmarking	Digitize fixed anatomical landmarks and sliding semilandmarks	519 points (9 fixed, 510 sliding) [17]
Procrustes Superimposition	Remove non-shape variation via Generalized Procrustes Analysis	Aligned landmark configurations
PCA Implementation	Perform eigenanalysis on variance-covariance matrix of aligned coordinates	Principal components, variance explained
Visualization & Interpretation	Generate scatterplots and shape deformation visualizations	PC plots, wireframe diagrams

Case Study: Human Mandibular Shape Variation

A recent study exemplifies the application of PCA to explore sex differences in the adult human mandible. Researchers segmented 50 male and 50 female mandibular surfaces from CBCT images and digitized 9 fixed landmarks and 510 sliding semilandmarks on each specimen [17]. After Procrustes alignment and PCA, results revealed significant sex differences in both size and shape, with males exhibiting larger size, higher ramus, more pronounced gonial angle, larger inter-gonial width, and more distinct antegonial notch. The first three principal components accounted for approximately 49% of total shape variation, with PC1 related to width, height, and length proportions, PC2 capturing variation in the ramus-corpus angle, and PC3 reflecting coronoid process height and symphysis inclination [17].

Geometric Morphometrics PCA Workflow

Critical Considerations and Limitations

Despite its widespread utility, PCA presents several limitations that researchers must acknowledge. Recent critiques highlight that PCA outcomes can be sensitive to input data characteristics and may produce artifacts that lead to questionable biological interpretations [23]. In physical anthropology, concerns have been raised about the subjectivity in interpreting PC scatterplots, where researchers may overemphasize patterns in the first few components while ignoring potentially relevant information in subsequent components [23]. Additionally, measurement error in landmark digitization can significantly impact results, with one study finding that inter-operator differences accounted for up to 30% of sample variation in cranial analyses [24].

Essential Research Toolkit

Successful implementation of PCA in geometric morphometric research requires specialized software tools for data processing, analysis, and visualization:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Tool Category	Specific Resources	Primary Function
Landmark Digitization	TPS Dig2, Viewbox 4	Precise landmark placement on specimens
Statistical Analysis	R (geomorph package), MorphoJ	Procrustes ANOVA, PCA, phylogenetic analyses
Custom Scripting	MORPHIX (Python), R functions	Specialized shape analysis, outlier detection
3D Visualization	MeshLab, Avizo	Surface rendering, shape deformation visualization
Data Repositories	Zenodo, MorphoSource	Storage and sharing of 3D models, landmark data
Dictyophorine A	Dictyophorine A	Dictyophorine A is a fungal sesquiterpene that promotes nerve growth factor (NGF) synthesis. This product is for Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary diagnostic or therapeutic use.
avenic acid A	avenic acid A, CAS:76224-57-2, MF:C12H22N2O8, MW:322.31 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Methodological Best Practices

To maximize robustness and reproducibility in PCA-based morphometric studies, researchers should adopt several key practices. Comprehensive error assessment should evaluate both intra- and inter-observer variability in landmark placement, as these can account for substantial proportions of total shape variation [24]. Multiple validation approaches should complement PCA results, including supervised machine learning classifiers that may provide more accurate classification and better detection of new morphological taxa [23]. Researchers should also report variance explained by multiple components rather than focusing exclusively on PC1 and PC2, and consider using cross-validation techniques to assess the stability of principal components, particularly when working with small sample sizes.

PCA remains an indispensable tool for exploring major axes of shape variation in geometric morphometrics, providing an unsupervised approach to reduce dimensionality while preserving essential morphological information. Its ability to visualize global patterns of shape variation makes it particularly valuable for initial exploratory analysis in identification research. However, researchers must acknowledge its limitations, including sensitivity to data input characteristics and potential subjectivity in interpretation. Optimizing PCA applications requires appropriate experimental design, comprehensive error assessment, and complementary use of supervised methods when class labels are available. As geometric morphometrics continues to evolve, integration of PCA with emerging machine learning approaches promises to enhance our understanding of complex shape variation across biological and biomedical research domains.

This guide provides an objective performance evaluation of geometric morphometrics (GM) against alternative methods in species classification, medical diagnosis, and drug design research, synthesizing recent experimental findings and methodologies.

Performance Comparison in Species Classification

Geometric morphometrics demonstrates varying efficacy across biological disciplines. The table below compares its performance against alternative identification methods based on recent experimental studies.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Species Classification Methods

Study Subject	GM Method	GM Performance	Alternative Method	Alternative Performance	Reference
Archaeobotanical Seeds	Outline Analysis	Lower accuracy in wild/domestic classification	Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN)	Outperformed GM in classification accuracy	[25]
Thrips Genus	Head & Thorax Landmarks	Effectively discriminated 8 species; significant shape differences (Procrustes distance: p<0.0001)	Traditional Morphology	Complements taxonomy for cryptic species	[26]
Horse Flies (Tabanus)	Wing Landmarks & Outlines	High species classification accuracy (97% adjusted total accuracy)	DNA Barcoding (cox1 gene)	96-100% sequence similarity with some misidentifications	[27]
Stink Bugs (Nezarini)	Head & Pronotum Landmarks	Effective genus-level and cryptic species discrimination	Traditional Diagnostic Morphology	Enhanced by GM for subtle morphological differences	[28]

Experimental Protocols for Species Classification

A. Landmark-Based GM for Insect Identification [26] [28]

• Sample Preparation: Slide-mounted specimens (e.g., thrips, stink bugs) or photographed wings (horse flies).
• Imaging: High-resolution images captured using DSLR cameras or microscopes.
• Landmark Digitization: Using software (TPS Dig2) to mark homologous anatomical points (e.g., 11 head landmarks, 10 thoracic setae insertion points in thrips).
• Data Processing: Procrustes superimposition in MorphoJ or R (geomorph package) to remove size, position, and rotation effects.
• Statistical Analysis: Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to visualize morphospace, with permutation tests of Procrustes and Mahalanobis distances to evaluate group differences.

B. Outline-Based GM for Seed Classification [25]

• Imaging: 2D orthophotographs of seeds.
• Outline Capture: Elliptical Fourier analysis to transform closed contours into quantitative shape data.
• Comparative Protocol: GM analysis pipeline implemented in R (Momocs package) compared against a CNN model built in Python (via reticulate), using identical training and test datasets.

Performance in Medical Diagnosis and Shape Analysis

GM quantifies pathological shape alterations in medical structures, providing diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers.

Table 2: Performance of GM in Medical and Anatomical Shape Analysis

Application Area	Biological Structure	GM Performance & Findings	Comparative Insight
Facial Dysmorphology	3D Human Face	Quantified subtle shape differences for syndrome diagnosis [29]; Evaluated low-cost 3D reconstruction fidelity [30]	GM provides biologically meaningful validation beyond geometric error [30]
Anatomical Taxonomy	Astragalus Bone (Sheep, Goat, Cattle)	100% discrimination between bovine and ovis; 97.2% for capra based on 13 landmarks [31]	Powerful tool for zooarchaeology and taxonomy
Craniofacial Analysis	Airway & Palate	Associated shape with obstructive sleep apnea and genetic syndromes (e.g., Marfan) [29]	GM links morphology to clinical conditions
Methodology	3D Landmarking	-	Architecture-reused deep learning landmarking was more accurate and faster than template-based methods [29]

Experimental Protocols for Medical Shape Analysis

A. 3D Facial Morphometry Evaluation [30]

• Ground Truth Acquisition: High-resolution 3D facial models using a 10-camera stereophotogrammetry (SPG) system.
• Low-Cost Method Comparison: Smartphone scans (iPhone TrueDepth) and deep learning reconstructions (3DDFA_V3, HRN, Era3D) from 2D images.
• Automatic Landmarking: 21 landmarks placed via a trained multi-view consensus CNN model.
• Morphometric Evaluation:
  • Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA): To compute global shape differences (Procrustes Distance).
  • Euclidean Distance Matrix Analysis (EDMA): To identify local morphological differences by comparing 210 inter-landmark distances.
• Validation: Compared geometric surface deviation and morphological preservation against SPG ground truth.

B. Bone Taxonomy [31]

• Sample & Imaging: 142 astragali bones from bovine, ovis, and capra; photographed from the dorsal side.
• Landmarking: 13 homologous landmarks digitized using TpsDig2.
• Analysis: Procrustes superimposition and PCA in MorphoJ to quantify and visualize taxonomic shape variation.
• Validation: Cross-validation tested grouping accuracy based on shape variables.

Application in Drug Design

Geometric deep learning extends shape analysis principles to molecular structures for drug discovery.

Table 3: Applications of Geometric Deep Learning in Drug Design [32]

Application	Description	Potential Impact
Molecular Property Prediction	Predicts bioactivity, toxicity, and other physicochemical properties from 3D structure	Accelerates virtual screening of compound libraries
Ligand Binding Site & Pose Prediction	Identifies potential binding pockets on proteins and predicts how ligands orient within them	Improves accuracy in structure-based drug design
De Novo Molecular Design	Generates novel molecular structures with desired geometric and chemical properties	Enables discovery of new chemical entities beyond existing compounds

• Data Representation: Molecular structures represented as 3D graphs where nodes are atoms and edges are bonds.
• Geometric Deep Learning Models: Utilize architectures that respect rotational and translational invariance (e.g., graph neural networks, equivariant networks).
• Training: Models trained on structural databases (e.g., Protein Data Bank) to learn structure-activity relationships.
• Tasks:
  • Property Prediction: Trained to predict biological activity from 3D ligand-protein complexes.
  • Binding Site Prediction: Identifies key interaction sites on protein surfaces.
  • Molecular Generation: Generates novel molecular structures optimized for specific target geometries.

Essential Research Reagents and Tools

Table 4: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Geometric Morphometrics

Tool/Software	Primary Function	Application Context
TPS Dig2 [26] [31]	Digitizing landmarks from 2D images	Species classification, anatomical analysis
MorphoJ [26] [31] [6]	Integrated GM analysis: Procrustes, PCA, discrimination	Standardized statistical shape analysis
R (geomorph package) [26] [25]	Statistical analysis of shape in R environment	Advanced multivariate statistical modeling
Momocs [25]	Outline and landmark analysis in R	Archaeobotanical studies, outline analysis
Agisoft Metashape [30]	3D model reconstruction from multi-view images	3D facial reconstruction, anatomical scanning
Multi-view CNN Landmarking [29] [30]	Automated 3D landmark detection	High-throughput medical shape analysis

Workflow and Conceptual Diagrams

Geometric Morphometrics Core Workflow

Performance Comparison Framework

Methodological Workflow and Diverse Biomedical Applications

Geometric morphometrics (GM) has revolutionized quantitative shape analysis across scientific disciplines, from clinical anatomy to structural biology. This guide provides a performance evaluation of primary data acquisition technologies—medical imaging, radiographs, and molecular surface capture—within a broader thesis on identification research. We objectively compare the capabilities, accuracy, and methodological requirements of these systems through experimental data and standardized protocols, providing researchers with evidence-based selection criteria for their specific applications.

Comparative Performance of Medical Imaging Modalities

Medical imaging technologies form the foundation for 3D geometric morphometrics in anatomical and clinical research. The table below summarizes key performance metrics for prevalent modalities.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Medical Imaging Modalities in Geometric Morphometrics

Modality	Typical Resolution	Key Strengths	Quantified Accuracy/Deviation	Primary Applications	Notable Methodological Considerations
Clinical CT	0.625 mm slice thickness [33]	Captures internal structures; clinical availability	0.42 mm mean deviation vs. laser scanner [33]	Skeletal analysis [33], preoperative planning [34]	Segmentation protocol significantly affects mesh quality (0.09–0.24 mm variation) [33]
Laser Scanner (Structured Light)	0.1 mm mesh resolution [33]	High-surface accuracy; portable	0.05 mm point accuracy [33]	External skeletal morphology [33], forensic anthropology [35]	Requires multiple scans from different angles; limited to external surfaces
3D Stereophotogrammetry	Sub-millimeter (exact NS) [30]	Non-invasive facial capture; rapid acquisition	High geometric/morphometric similarity to ground truth [30]	3D facial reconstruction [30], soft-tissue analysis [30]	Affected by ambient lighting; requires specialized camera setup [30]

Experimental Evidence: Skeletal Imaging Protocol and Outcomes

A rigorous 2022 study directly compared CT and laser scanning for human fibulae analysis, establishing critical methodological standards [33].

Experimental Protocol:

• Sample: 13 left human fibulae from identified skeletal collection [33]
• CT Scanning: Revolution Discovery CT dual energy (0.625 mm resolution) [33]
• Laser Scanning: ARTEC Space Spider (0.1 mm resolution; 0.05 mm point accuracy) [33]
• Segmentation Methods: Compared half-maximum height (HMH) and MIA-clustering protocols [33]
• Smoothing Algorithms: Evaluated Laplacian and Taubin smoothing at varying iterations [33]
• Analysis: 142 semilandmarks with Generalized Procrustes superimposition [33]

Key Findings:

• Mean surface deviation between CT (MIA-clustering protocol) and laser scanner meshes was 0.42 mm (range: 0.35–0.56 mm) [33]
• Segmentation protocol influenced final mesh quality (0.09–0.24 mm variation) [33]
• Principal component analysis revealed homologous samples from both methods clustered together [33]
• Procrustes ANOVA showed only 1.38–1.43% of shape variation attributable to scanning device [33]

This validation enables researchers to merge datasets from these modalities when necessary, significantly expanding research possibilities [33].

Diagnostic Radiographs and Geometric Morphometrics

Lateral cephalometric radiographs remain fundamental in orthodontic diagnosis, with geometric morphometrics enhancing their analytical power.

Table 2: Performance Metrics for Cephalometric Radiographs in Malocclusion Classification

Parameter	Specification	Experimental Outcome	Clinical Significance
Landmark Configuration	16 anatomical landmarks + 50 semilandmarks [36]	Captured comprehensive craniofacial shape [36]	Enabled statistical shape analysis beyond conventional measurements [36]
Group Discrimination	Neutrocclusion, distocclusion, mesiocclusion, anterior open bite [36]	Mandibular position/shape contributed most to discrimination [36]	Confirmed skeletal correlates of malocclusion with substantial individual variation [36]
Diagnostic Performance	Compared GM with standard cephalometrics [36]	GM powerful for research; conventional measurements equally/more efficient for individual diagnosis [36]	Supports integrated approach using both methodologies [36]

Cephalometric Analysis Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the integrated workflow for geometric morphometric analysis from lateral skull radiographs:

Protein Structure Acquisition and Analysis

Geometric morphometrics has expanded into structural biology, enabling quantitative analysis of protein conformations and molecular surfaces.

Geometric Morphometrics for GPCR Structures

A novel 2021 application demonstrated GM's utility for classifying G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) structures [37].

Experimental Protocol:

• Data Source: XYZ coordinates of Cα atoms at extracellular/intracellular ends of 7 transmembrane helices [37]
• Landmark Selection: First and last residue of each TM helix (14 landmarks total) [37]
• Analysis Pipeline: Procrustes superimposition → Principal component analysis → Statistical testing (ANOSIM, PERMANOVA) [37]
• Classification Variables: Activation state, bound ligands, fusion proteins, thermostabilizing mutations [37]

Key Findings:

• Successfully discriminated GPCR structures based on activation state, bound ligands, and fusion proteins [37]
• Most significant classification results observed at intracellular face (site of conformational changes) [37]
• Thermostabilizing mutations did not cause significant structural differences [37]
• Provides validation tool for newly resolved structures and experimental design [37]

Protein Surface Shape Retrieval

The SHREC 2025 track evaluated protein surface retrieval methods, highlighting the importance of integrating electrostatic potential with shape data [38].

Table 3: Protein Surface Retrieval Benchmark (SHREC 2025)

Method Category	Dataset Size	Key Modality	Performance Insight
Histogram-based descriptors	11,565 protein surfaces [38]	Geometric descriptors	Baseline performance for shape retrieval [38]
Spectral geometric methods	97 unbalanced classes [38]	Surface geometry	Captures global shape characteristics [38]
Molecular surface maps	Training: 9,244 [38]	2D projections of 3D surfaces	Enables 2D computer vision approaches [38]
3D Zernike descriptors	Test: 2,311 [38]	Moment-based invariants	Rotation-invariant shape description [38]
Geometric deep learning	15 submitted methods [38]	Shape + electrostatic potential	Highest retrieval performance when combining modalities [38]

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Methodological Components

Core Software and Analytical Tools

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Tool Category	Specific Software/Platform	Function	Application Example
3D Processing	3D Slicer [34] [39]	Image segmentation and 3D model processing	Cranial malformation diagnosis [34]
Shape Analysis	MorphoJ [35]	Geometric morphometric analysis	Procrustes superimposition and PCA [35]
Landmarking	TPSdig [36]	Landmark digitization	2D coordinate acquisition from radiographs [36]
Statistical Analysis	R (geomorph package) [34]	Multivariate shape statistics	Procrustes ANOVA, permutation tests [34]
3D Scanning	Artec Studio [33]	Surface mesh generation from point clouds	Skeletal specimen digitization [33]
Trewiasine	Trewiasine	Trewiasine is a potent plant-derived maytansinoid cytotoxin for anticancer research. For Research Use Only. Not for human use.	Bench Chemicals
Stypotriol	Stypotriol, CAS:71106-25-7, MF:C27H40O4, MW:428.6 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Integrated Data Acquisition and Analysis Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the comprehensive pipeline for geometric morphometric analysis across biological structures:

This comparison guide demonstrates that optimal data acquisition methodology depends critically on research objectives, sample characteristics, and analytical requirements. Clinical CT provides the essential capability to image internal structures with sufficient accuracy for many morphological studies (0.42 mm deviation from high-resolution standards), while structured light laser scanning offers superior surface resolution for external morphology [33]. For orthodontic applications, cephalometric radiographs with landmark-based GM provide powerful research insights, though conventional measurements remain efficient for clinical diagnosis [36]. Most remarkably, geometric morphometrics shows exceptional versatility, extending from anatomical structures to protein classification, where it successfully discriminates functional states based on minimal landmark configurations [37]. The integration of electrostatic potential with protein surface shape represents the cutting edge, demonstrating that multi-modal approaches consistently outperform shape-only analyses [38]. As geometric morphometrics continues evolving, researchers should prioritize methodological transparency, report segmentation and smoothing parameters, and validate cross-platform compatibility when merging datasets from different acquisition systems.

The quantitative assessment of biological shape is fundamental to evolutionary biology, medical diagnostics, and comparative anatomy. Geometric morphometrics (GM) has revolutionized this analysis by enabling precise quantification of anatomical form using landmark coordinates placed on biological structures. The gold standard in GM relies on manual landmarking by experts at locations considered biologically homologous, providing a foundational representation of shape. However, this approach captures only sparse shape information, limited by the number of identifiable homologous points, particularly on smooth surfaces or structures with poorly defined boundaries [40].

To address these limitations, semi-landmark and pseudo-landmark methods were developed to supplement manual landmarks by capturing shape information between traditional landmarks. These approaches relax the strict requirement for biological homology in exchange for increased density of shape information. Semi-landmarks maintain a geometric relationship to manual landmarks, while pseudo-landmarks are placed automatically on surfaces with no direct relationship to manual landmarks [40]. The strategic application of these methods involves significant trade-offs between point correspondence, sample coverage, repeatability, and computational efficiency [40].

This guide provides a comparative evaluation of landmark and semi-landmark strategies, presenting experimental data on their performance in capturing complex biological shapes. We focus on methodologies relevant for researchers and drug development professionals who require robust shape quantification for identification research and morphological analysis.

Methodological Approaches and Experimental Protocols

Established Semi-Landmarking Strategies

Three primary strategies have emerged for dense sampling of 3D biological surfaces, each with distinct methodological approaches and implementation considerations [40] [41]:

Patch-Based Semi-Landmarking creates triangular regions bounded by three manual landmarks. A template grid with user-specified semi-landmark density is registered to the bounding triangle using thin-plate spline (TPS) deformation. Grid vertices are then projected to the specimen surface using ray-casting algorithms along averaged surface normal vectors. This method preserves direct geometric relationships with manual landmarks but demonstrates sensitivity to surface noise and complex curvatures [40].

Patch-Based Semi-Landmarks with Thin-Plate Splines (Patch-TPS) generates semi-landmarks on a single template specimen using the patch method, then transfers them to all specimens in a dataset through TPS transformation based on manual landmarks. For each semi-landmark point, rays are cast along the template's normal vectors to find intersections with warped specimen surfaces. This approach improves robustness over basic patch sampling by reducing sensitivity to individual specimen noise [40].

Pseudo-Landmark Sampling automatically generates points on a template model through regular sampling with enforced minimum spacing, assuming spherical topology. These points lack geometric relationships to manual landmarks. The pseudo-landmarks are projected to each sample using TPS transformation and normal vector projection. This method provides extensive coverage and consistent spacing but sacrifices direct biological correspondence [40].

Functional Data Analysis Innovations

Recent methodological innovations incorporate functional data analysis (FDA) to address limitations in traditional geometric morphometrics. These approaches treat shape not as discrete points but as continuous functions, better capturing curvature and complex morphological features [7].

The square-root velocity function (SRVF) framework leverages the Fisher-Rao Riemannian metric to separate amplitude and phase variation, aligning curves to a Karcher mean template. This manifold-aware approach provides theoretically robust enhancements to Procrustean techniques, particularly for high-dimensional shape data [7].

Arc-length parameterization enables consistent assessment of complex-shaped signals by eliminating variability from uneven sampling. This approach models the space of unparameterized curves as a quotient of parameterized curves under reparameterization group action, with arc-length parameterization serving as a canonical representative for uniform sampling and geometry-preserving comparisons [7].

Landmark-Free Approaches

For analyses across highly disparate taxa where homology is difficult to establish, landmark-free methods offer promising alternatives. Deterministic Atlas Analysis (DAA) implements Large Deformation Diffeomorphic Metric Mapping (LDDMM) to compare shapes without manual landmarks [42].

DAA generates a dynamically computed geodesic mean shape (atlas) through iterative estimation that minimizes total deformation energy required to map it onto all specimens. Control points guide shape comparison, with momentum vectors representing optimal deformation trajectories for atlas-specimen alignment. Kernel principal component analysis (kPCA) then enables visualization and exploration of covariation in the momenta-based shape data [42].

Table 1: Key Software Tools for Landmark and Semi-Landmark Analysis

Software/Tool	Primary Function	Methodology Support	Accessibility
3D Slicer with SlicerMorph Extension [40]	3D visualization and landmarking	Patch, Patch-TPS, and Pseudo-landmark sampling	Open-source
R Package Morpho [40]	Statistical shape analysis	Semi-landmark sliding and optimization	Open-source
R Package Geomorph [40]	GM analysis	Procrustes analysis and statistical testing	Open-source
Deformetrica [42]	Landmark-free analysis	DAA and LDDMM implementation	Open-source

Comparative Performance Evaluation

Experimental Framework for Semi-Landmark Strategies

A comprehensive evaluation of the three semi-landmarking strategies was conducted using cranial data from three great ape species: Pan troglodytes (N=11), Gorilla gorilla (N=22), and Pongo pygmaeus (N=18) from the National Museum of Natural History collections [40] [41]. The experimental protocol involved:

Data Acquisition and Preparation: DICOM stacks were converted to volumes and reviewed for cranial feature completeness. Manual landmarks were previously collected using 3D Slicer software [40].

Performance Metric: The evaluation quantified how effectively each semi-landmark set could estimate a transform between an individual specimen and the population average template. Success was measured using the average mean root squared error between the transformed mesh and the template [40] [41].

Implementation Details: All methods were implemented within the SlicerMorph extension of 3D Slicer, an open-source biomedical visualization platform. This ensured consistent implementation and comparison across methodologies [40].

Quantitative Performance Results

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Semi-Landmark Methods on Great Ape Cranial Data

Method	Shape Estimation Accuracy	Noise Sensitivity	Missing Data Robustness	Computational Efficiency	Point Correspondence
Manual Landmarks Only	Baseline	Low	Low	High	High
Patch-Based Semi-Landmarking	Comparable or better than manual	High	Low	Medium	High
Patch-TPS Semi-Landmarking	Comparable or better than manual	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium
Pseudo-Landmark Sampling	Comparable or better than manual	Low	High	Low	Low

The experimental results demonstrated that all three dense sampling strategies produced template estimates that were comparable to or exceeded the accuracy of using manual landmarks alone, while significantly increasing shape information density [40] [41]. Each method exhibited distinct performance characteristics:

The patch method showed highest sensitivity to noise and missing data, producing outliers with large deviations in mean shape estimates. Its performance was strongly influenced by surface geometry and curvature assumptions [40].

Patch-TPS and pseudo-landmarking provided more robust performance with noisy and variable datasets. Patch-TPS maintained better point correspondence than pseudo-landmarking, while pseudo-landmarking offered superior coverage and consistency in point spacing [40].

Functional Data Analysis Performance

Evaluation of functional data approaches employed a simulation study and application to 3D kangaroo skull landmarks from 41 extant species across dietary categories [7]. The experimental framework implemented eight distinct pipelines:

• GM: Classical geometric morphometrics with Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA)
• Arc-GM: Arc-length parameterization before GPA
• FDM: Functional data morphometrics modeling 3D outlines as multivariate functional data
• Arc-FDM: Arc-length parameterization before FDM
• Soft-SRV-FDM: Blended identity mapping with SRVF warp estimation
• Arc-Soft-SRV-FDM: Arc-length parameterization before Soft-SRV-FDM
• Elastic-SRV-FDM: Full SRVF-based elastic alignment
• Arc-Elastic-SRV-FDM: Arc-length parameterization before Elastic-SRV-FDM [7]

Classification analysis using linear discriminant analysis, support vector machines, and multinomial regression demonstrated that functional data approaches, particularly with arc-length and SRVF-based alignment, provided robust shape analysis perspectives while maintaining geometric morphometrics as a reliable baseline [7].

Landmark-Free Method Evaluation

The assessment of landmark-free DAA utilized a extensive dataset of 322 mammals spanning 180 families, comparing performance against high-density geometric morphometrics with manual and semi-landmarks [42].

Initial challenges with mixed imaging modalities (CT and surface scans) were addressed through Poisson surface reconstruction, creating watertight, closed surfaces for all specimens. This standardization significantly improved correspondence between shape variation patterns measured using manual landmarking and DAA [42].

The comparison revealed that both methods produced comparable but varying estimates of phylogenetic signal, morphological disparity, and evolutionary rates. DAA demonstrated particular utility for large-scale studies across disparate taxa due to enhanced efficiency, though differences emerged in specific clades like Primates and Cetacea [42].

Research Reagent Solutions Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Materials and Computational Tools for Landmark-Based Analysis

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Platforms	Function/Purpose
3D Visualization & Landmarking	3D Slicer with SlicerMorph extension [40]	Core platform for 3D data handling, manual landmarking, and semi-landmark implementation
Statistical Analysis	R packages: Morpho, Geomorph [40]	Statistical shape analysis, Procrustes alignment, and evolutionary morphology analysis
Landmark-Free Analysis	Deformetrica [42]	Implementation of DAA and LDDMM for landmark-free shape analysis
Data Acquisition	CT scanners, surface scanners [42]	Generation of 3D digital specimens from physical structures
Data Standardization	Poisson surface reconstruction [42]	Processing mixed-modality data (CT and surface scans) into watertight, comparable meshes
Functional Data Analysis	Custom R/Python implementations [7]	Implementation of SRVF, arc-length parameterization, and functional PCA
Ridaifen G	Ridaifen G, MF:C32H42N2O2, MW:486.7 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Perfluorocyclohexane	Perfluorocyclohexane, CAS:355-68-0, MF:C6F12, MW:300.04 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Methodological Workflows

The following diagrams illustrate key experimental workflows and methodological relationships for landmark and semi-landmark strategies.

The comparative evaluation of landmark and semi-landmark strategies reveals a methodological landscape with complementary strengths and limitations. Traditional manual landmarking provides biological homology and interpretability but limited shape capture. Semi-landmark approaches significantly increase shape information density, with patch methods maintaining geometric relationships to manual landmarks while pseudo-landmarking offers superior coverage and spacing consistency.

For research applications requiring comparison across morphologically disparate taxa or analysis of large datasets, landmark-free approaches like DAA provide compelling advantages in efficiency, though they may sacrifice some biological interpretability. The emerging functional data analysis framework, particularly with arc-length parameterization and SRVF alignment, offers sophisticated tools for capturing complex shape features beyond traditional landmark-based approaches.

Methodological selection should be guided by specific research objectives: traditional geometric morphometrics for hypothesis-driven studies requiring biological homology; semi-landmark augmentation for enhanced shape capture in well-defined structures; landmark-free methods for large-scale comparative analyses; and functional data approaches for investigating complex morphological patterns. Future methodological development will likely focus on integrating these approaches, improving computational efficiency, and enhancing biological interpretability of landmark-free and functional data methods.

The efficacy of nose-to-brain (N2B) drug delivery, a promising method for bypassing the blood-brain barrier, is highly dependent on individual nasal anatomy. This case study explores the application of geometric morphometrics (GMM) to classify nasal cavities into distinct morphometric clusters for personalized N2B therapy. We evaluate the performance of GMM against traditional linear morphometrics (LMM) for this identification task, framing the analysis within a broader thesis on morphological performance evaluation. The objective is to determine whether GMM's superior capture of complex shape variations translates into more effective clustering for targeted drug delivery systems.

Nasal Anatomy and the Basis for N2B Delivery

The human nasal cavity is a complex structure divided into several anatomically and functionally distinct regions. Understanding these is crucial for appreciating the targeting requirements of N2B delivery.

• Vestibular Region: The anterior part of the nose, lined with squamous epithelium and containing nasal hairs. It is generally unsuitable for drug absorption [43] [44].
• Respiratory Region: The largest region, comprising up to 90% of the nasal surface area. It is highly vascularized, facilitating systemic drug absorption, and is innervated by the trigeminal nerve, providing one pathway to the brain [45] [43] [46].
• Olfactory Region: Located at the roof of the nasal cavity, this is the primary gateway for direct N2B delivery. It contains olfactory sensory neurons whose axons project through the cribriform plate directly into the olfactory bulb of the brain [45] [43] [44]. This region, though making up only about 10% of the human nasal surface area, is the critical target for formulations designed to bypass the blood-brain barrier entirely [45] [43].

The direct connection between the olfactory region and the central nervous system enables drugs to bypass the blood-brain barrier, offering a non-invasive route for treating neurological conditions [46] [44]. However, the olfactory region's relatively small size and posterior location make it a difficult target, with deposition heavily influenced by the intricate and variable three-dimensional geometry of an individual's nasal cavity [45] [47].

Performance Evaluation: Geometric vs. Linear Morphometrics

The choice of measurement protocol is fundamental to any morphological clustering task. The table below compares the core methodologies of Linear Morphometrics (LMM) and Geometric Morphometrics (GMM) for nasal cavity analysis.

Table 1: Methodological Comparison of LMM and GMM for Nasal Cavity Analysis

Feature	Linear Morphometrics (LMM)	Geometric Morphometrics (GMM)
Data Acquired	Point-to-point linear distances, angles, ratios [48]	2D or 3D coordinates of biological landmarks [1]
Underlying Space	Measurement space (no explicit geometry) [48]	Kendall's shape space or conformation space [49] [1]
Size & Shape Separation	Often conflated; requires explicit size correction [48]	Intrinsic separation via Procrustes superimposition [49] [1]
Information Captured	Limited subset of form; dominated by size [48]	Holistic shape and form; comprehensive geometry [48] [1]
Visualization of Results	Difficult; limited to bar graphs or scatterplots	Intuitive; graphical output as actual shapes [48]

The performance of these two approaches for taxonomic identification and clustering has been quantitatively evaluated. One study compared the discriminatory power of four published LMM protocols against a 3D GMM dataset for classifying closely related species. The findings are summarized below:

Table 2: Empirical Performance Comparison for Taxonomic Discrimination

Analysis Type	LMM Performance	GMM Performance
Raw Data (PCA & LDA)	High group discrimination [48]	Lower group discrimination than LMM [48]
Data with Isometry Removed	Reduced discriminatory power [48]	Improved group discrimination [48]
Data with Allometry Removed	Greatly reduced discriminatory power [48]	Maintained correct group discrimination [48]
Primary Risk	Discrimination often driven by size variation rather than shape [48]	Effectively differentiates allometric and non-allometric shape differences [48]

These results highlight a critical weakness of LMM: its propensity to inflate perceived group differences by relying on size variation (allometry), which may not be relevant for functional clustering [48]. GMM, by explicitly accounting for allometry, provides a more reliable and biologically meaningful characterization of shape variation, making it more robust for creating nasal cavity clusters based on genuine morphological differences that affect drug deposition.

Experimental Protocols for Nasal Delivery Research

Protocol 1: Numerical Simulation of Particle Deposition

This in silico protocol is used to model and predict aerosol deposition in the nasal cavity prior to in vivo studies [47].

• Model Acquisition: Obtain a accurate 3D reconstruction of the human nasal cavity from medical imaging data (e.g., CT or MRI scans).
• Mesh Generation: Discretize the nasal cavity volume into a computational mesh suitable for fluid dynamics simulations.
• Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Setup:
  • Define steady inhalation or exhalation flow rates at the nostrils or nasopharynx as boundary conditions [47].
  • Set the nasal walls as no-slip boundaries.
• Discrete Phase Modeling (DPM):
  • Inject aerosol particles with defined size distributions (e.g., 1 nm to 10 μm) into the airflow field [47].
  • Use a particle tracking method to simulate transport and deposition, accounting for inertial impaction, gravitational sedimentation, and diffusion.
• Data Analysis: Calculate overall and regional deposition fractions, with particular focus on the olfactory region, to evaluate the efficiency of different delivery systems [47].

Protocol 2: Imaging-Based Analysis of N2B Transport

This protocol utilizes medical imaging to track the transport of therapeutics in vivo [46].

• Formulation Labeling: The drug or carrier system is labeled with a contrast agent or radiotracer (e.g., for MRI, SPECT, PET, or fluorescence imaging) [46].
• Intranasal Administration: The formulated product is administered to human volunteers or animal models using a controlled delivery device (e.g., a nasal spray pump or a breath-powered bi-directional device) [47].
• Image Acquisition: Conduct serial non-invasive imaging sessions over a time course (from minutes to hours) to track the spatial distribution and clearance of the tracer [46].
• Image Co-registration and Quantification: Co-register images to an anatomical atlas. Quantify signal intensity in regions of interest, including the olfactory bulb, trigeminal nerve pathways, cerebrospinal fluid, and the rest of the brain, to determine pharmacokinetic profiles [46].

Signaling Pathways for Nose-to-Brain Drug Transport

Intranasally administered therapeutics can reach the brain via several pathways, broadly categorized as direct (extracellular) and indirect (systemic) routes. The following diagram illustrates the primary direct pathways that bypass the blood-brain barrier.

Diagram 1: Primary direct nose-to-brain transport pathways.

• Olfactory Nerve Pathway (Intraneuronal): This is the most direct route. After crossing the olfactory mucosa, substances are internalized by the axon terminals of olfactory sensory neurons and transported intra-axonally through the cribriform plate to the olfactory bulb [44]. While direct, this transport is relatively slow, taking from 1.5 hours to several days [46] [44].
• Olfactory Epithelial Pathway (Paracellular): This is a key extracellular route. Drug molecules move through the intercellular clefts between supporting cells or between supporting and olfactory nerve cells. They reach the lamina propria and then travel via rapid, bulk flow within the perineuronal and perivascular spaces surrounding the olfactory nerve bundles to reach the olfactory bulb and the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in the subarachnoid space [46] [44]. This pathway is believed to be responsible for the rapid delivery (within minutes) observed for many small molecules [46].
• Trigeminal Nerve Pathway (Perineuronal/Perivascular): The respiratory and olfactory epithelia are also innervated by the trigeminal nerve. Drugs can be absorbed and travel along the perineuronal and perivascular spaces associated with this nerve's branches to reach the brainstem and other parts of the brain [46]. This pathway also supports rapid central distribution.

The relative contribution of each pathway depends on the drug's formulation properties, such as particle size, lipophilicity, and molecular weight [47].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

The following table details key reagents and materials essential for conducting research in nasal morphometrics and N2B delivery formulation.

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Materials for N2B Research

Item Name	Function/Application	Specific Examples & Notes
Anatomical Imaging Equipment	To acquire 3D data of nasal cavity morphology for morphometric analysis and CFD modeling.	CT (Computed Tomography) and MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) scanners [46].
Geometric Morphometrics Software	To digitize landmarks, perform Procrustes superimposition, and conduct statistical shape analysis.	R packages (geomorph [1]), MorphoJ [48], EVAN Toolbox [1].
Molecular Dynamics Software	To simulate interactions between drug molecules and biological matrices or efflux pumps at the atomic level.	GROMACS [50].
Absorption Enhancers	To temporarily increase mucosal permeability, improving drug absorption across the nasal epithelium.	Alkylsaccharides (e.g., Dodecyl maltoside/Intravail [51]).
Mucoadhesive Polymers	To increase formulation residence time in the nasal cavity by adhering to the mucus layer, countering mucociliary clearance.	Gelatin, chitosan, cellulose derivatives [50].
Nanoparticulate Carrier Systems	To protect therapeutic agents, enhance absorption, and facilitate targeted delivery.	Gelatin nanospheres, Tripalmitin Solid Lipid Nanoparticles (SLNs) [50].
In Vivo Imaging Tracers	To visually track the transport and distribution of therapeutics in live animal models or humans.	Radioactive isotopes for PET/SPECT, contrast agents for MRI, fluorescent dyes [46].
Aniline phosphate	Aniline Phosphate|Research Chemical	Aniline Phosphate for research. Building block in pharmaceutical, dye, and polymer studies. For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary use.
Butyl sorbate	Butyl sorbate, CAS:7367-78-4, MF:C10H16O2, MW:168.23 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

This case study demonstrates that the personalization of N2B drug delivery via nasal cavity clustering is a viable and promising strategy. The core thesis—evaluating the performance of morphometric methodologies—clearly establishes that Geometric Morphometrics outperforms Linear Morphometrics for this application. GMM's capacity to provide a holistic, allometry-corrected representation of complex nasal geometry enables the identification of biologically meaningful and functionally relevant morphological clusters. When combined with advanced formulation strategies and robust experimental protocols, this GMM-led clustering approach paves the way for developing more effective and personalized intranasal therapies for a range of neurological disorders.

Age estimation is a cornerstone of forensic anthropology and odontology, playing a critical role in the identification of human remains and legal determinations of criminal responsibility [52]. Among skeletal elements, the mandible is particularly valuable due to its durability and distinctive developmental changes [52] [53]. This case study objectively evaluates the performance of various analytical methods for age estimation through mandible analysis, with particular emphasis on geometric morphometrics within the broader context of performance evaluation for identification research. We provide researchers and forensic professionals with a comparative analysis of methodological approaches, experimental protocols, and performance metrics to inform protocol selection in both research and applied contexts.

Performance Comparison of Mandibular Analysis Techniques

The quantitative comparison of different methodological approaches is fundamental for selecting appropriate protocols in forensic research and practice. The table below summarizes key performance metrics and characteristics of major techniques for age estimation from the mandible.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Mandibular Age Estimation Techniques

Methodological Approach	Reported Accuracy / Error	Sample Characteristics	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
Machine Learning with Linear Measurements [52]	MAE: 1.21-1.54 years; R²: 0.56	401 individuals (6-16 years); Lateral cephalograms	High throughput; Standardized measurements; Explicit feature importance	Requires prior knowledge of predictors; Population-specific influences
Geometric Morphometrics (Landmark-Based) [53]	Standard error: ±1.3-3.0 years	79 subadults; 38 3D landmarks	Captures complex shape changes; Comprehensive form analysis	Technically demanding; Requires specialized software expertise
Linear Cephalometric Analysis [54] [55]	Growth rates: 2.23-4.26 mm/year	120 individuals (7-20 years); Lateral cephalograms	Simple implementation; Established clinical reference data	Limited to 2D projections; Less comprehensive than 3D approaches
Trabecular Bone Microstructure Analysis [56]	Significant correlation with age (r = -0.489 to -0.527)	20 adults (22-43 years); CBCT scans	Assesses internal architecture; Potential for adult age estimation	Small sample sizes in current literature; Requires high-resolution imaging
Histological Analysis [57]	Closer to actual age than radiographs (qualitative assessment)	Comparative study; OPG and ground sections	Gold standard for microstructural assessment	Destructive sampling required; Time-consuming processing

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Machine Learning with Mandibular Morphometrics

Sample Preparation and Imaging: This protocol begins with acquiring lateral cephalometric radiographs from orthodontic patients (6-16 years). Images are imported as lossless TIF files into cephalometric analysis software (e.g., OnyxCeph) and calibrated. Each cephalogram is oriented using the Frankfort horizontal plane and midsagittal reference line to minimize distortions from head inclination or rotation [52].

Landmark Identification and Measurement: Anatomical landmarks are identified: Gnathion (Gn, most inferior/anterior mandibular point), Menton (Me, lowest chin point), Pogonion (Pog, most anterior chin point), Gonion (Go, most posterior/inferior mandibular angle point), Condylion (Co, most superior condyle point), and Articulare (Ar, ramus/skull base intersection). From these landmarks, key linear measurements (mm) are recorded: Mandibular Ramus Height (Co-Go), Mandibular Body Length (Go-Gn), Total Mandibular Length (Co-Pog), and the angular measurement of the Gonial Angle (Ar-Go-Me) [52].

Machine Learning Pipeline: The dataset is randomly split into training (80%) and testing (20%) sets with stratified 5-fold cross-validation to prevent overfitting. Eight supervised algorithms are trained: Linear Regression, Gradient Boosting Regressor, Random Forest Regressor, Decision Tree Regressor, AdaBoost Regressor, Support Vector Regression, K-Nearest Neighbors Regressor, and Multilayer Perceptron Regressor. Hyperparameter optimization is performed using Grid Search, and models are evaluated using MAE, MSE, RMSE, and R² with 95% confidence intervals estimated via bootstrapping [52].

Geometric Morphometrics Protocol

Landmark Design and Acquisition: For comprehensive shape analysis, 38 bilateral three-dimensional landmarks are designed to capture mandibular morphology. These are acquired using a portable digitizer, creating a configuration of homologous points that represent the entire mandibular form. Landmarks should include type I (discrete anatomical junctions), type II (maximum curvature points), and type III (extremal points) to comprehensively capture morphology [53].

Data Processing and Analysis: The landmark configurations are subjected to Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA) to remove the effects of size, position, and orientation. This involves: (1) Centering configurations to a common origin; (2) Scaling to unit centroid size; and (3) Rotating to minimize the sum of squared distances between corresponding landmarks. The resulting Procrustes coordinates are analyzed through Principal Components Analysis (PCA) to identify major patterns of shape variation. Regression of shape variables against known age is used to develop predictive models, with cross-validation to assess performance [53] [58].

Sex and Age Modeling: For samples including both sexes, discriminant function analysis with leave-one-out cross-validation can be applied to the principal component scores. Shape variables significantly correlated with age are used to construct regression models for age prediction, with Procrustes ANOVA employed to test for significant shape differences between age groups or sexes [58].

Trabecular Bone Microstructure Analysis

Region of Interest Selection: CBCT scans meeting specific protocol requirements (voxel size ≤90µm, tube voltage 80 kV, tube current 3 mA) are selected. The volume of interest is defined as the interdental space between the second mandibular premolar and first molar, extending to the trabecular space beneath and between the apices. This region is chosen for its representative trabecular pattern and clinical accessibility [56].

Image Processing and Segmentation: DICOM images are pre-processed, transformed, and segmented using a semi-automatic threshold-guided method in specialized software (e.g., AnalyzeDirect 14.0). The segmentation process isolates trabecular bone from cortical elements using a combination of manual, semi-automatic, and automatic threshold-guided approaches to ensure accurate representation of the trabecular network [56].

Microstructural Quantification: The segmented bone structure is quantified for standard trabecular parameters: Trabecular Number (Tb.N), Trabecular Thickness (Tb.Th), Trabecular Separation (Tb.Sp), Trabecular Bone Volume Fraction (Tb.BV/TV), and Trabecular Surface Density (Tb.BS/TV). Statistical correlation analysis (e.g., Pearson correlation) is performed between these parameters and chronological age to identify significant relationships [56].

Methodological Relationships and Workflow Integration

The following diagram illustrates the conceptual relationships between the major methodological approaches discussed in this case study and their general workflow positioning.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Materials

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Mandibular Age Estimation Studies

Tool/Category	Specific Examples	Primary Function	Application Context
Imaging Systems	Cone-Beam CT (CBCT), Multislice CT (MCT), Lateral Cephalometric Units	Generate 2D/3D representations of mandibular anatomy	All methodological approaches; Resolution requirements vary by technique
Analytical Software	OnyxCeph, AnalyzeDirect, TPS Digi, MorphoJ, R with shapes library	Landmark placement, image processing, and statistical shape analysis	Geometric morphometrics; Trabecular microstructure analysis
Landmarking Tools	Portable digitizers, 3D scanners, Digital calipers	Precise spatial coordinate acquisition for morphological analysis	Geometric morphometric protocols; Linear measurement approaches
Machine Learning Libraries	Scikit-learn, TensorFlow, PyTorch	Implement regression algorithms for predictive modeling	Machine learning approach with mandibular measurements [52]
Statistical Packages	R, SPSS, Python (SciPy, Pandas)	Perform statistical analysis and validation of age prediction models	All methodologies; Particularly crucial for model validation
Ammonium nonanoate	Ammonium Nonanoate Research Herbicide	Ammonium nonanoate is a broad-spectrum, contact organic herbicide for research. For Research Use Only (RUO). Not for personal use.	Bench Chemicals
Halostachine	Halostachine, CAS:495-42-1, MF:C9H13NO, MW:151.21 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Discussion and Performance Evaluation

The comparative analysis reveals distinctive performance profiles across methodological approaches. Machine learning applications with mandibular measurements demonstrate competitive accuracy (MAE: 1.21-1.54 years) while utilizing standardized clinical imaging protocols [52]. This approach offers practical advantages through automated analysis and explicit feature importance rankings, with total mandibular length (Co-Pog) and ramus height (Co-Go) identified as particularly predictive variables [52].

Geometric morphometric methods capture complex shape changes that may not be apparent in linear measurements alone, achieving standard error rates between ±1.3-3.0 years in subadult populations [53]. The technique provides comprehensive quantification of form variation but requires specialized expertise in landmark placement and statistical shape analysis. Recent advances in dense landmark configurations (500+ landmarks) have enhanced the capability to create detailed mandibular atlases for reconstruction guidance [17].

For adult age estimation, where growth-related changes are minimal, trabecular bone microstructure analysis shows promise through significant correlations with chronological age (Tb.N: r = -0.489; BS/TV: r = -0.527) [56]. This approach leverages the dynamic remodeling characteristics of trabecular bone but currently suffers from limited validation samples and requires high-resolution imaging protocols.

Method selection should be guided by specific research or case requirements: machine learning with linear measurements offers efficiency and standardization for subadult estimation; geometric morphometrics provides comprehensive shape analysis for detailed morphological studies; and trabecular analysis may supplement other methods for adult age estimation, particularly when histology is not feasible.

This performance evaluation demonstrates that mandibular analysis provides multiple viable pathways for age estimation in forensic contexts. Machine learning approaches with standard morphometric measurements offer an optimal balance of accuracy and practical implementation for routine casework. Geometric morphometrics delivers more comprehensive shape characterization but requires greater technical expertise. The continuing development of 3D imaging technologies and analytical algorithms promises enhanced accuracy and standardization across all methodologies. Future research directions should prioritize external validation across diverse populations, refinement of adult estimation techniques through trabecular analysis, and implementation of open-source analytical pipelines to improve reproducibility and comparability across studies.

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) represent the largest family of membrane proteins in the human genome and are critically important drug targets, with approximately 33% of all FDA-approved small molecule drugs targeting this receptor family [59] [60]. The classification of GPCR structures is a fundamental prerequisite for effective drug discovery, as it enables researchers to understand ligand binding mechanisms, activation states, and signaling pathways. This case study provides a performance evaluation of Geometric Morphometrics (GM), a mathematical approach for analyzing shape variations in three-dimensional space, against other computational methods for GPCR structure classification. We frame this analysis within the broader thesis that robust classification methods are essential for advancing structure-based drug design against this therapeutically important protein family.

The challenge in GPCR drug discovery lies in the dynamic and complex nature of these receptors, which undergo precise conformational rearrangements upon activation [37]. While GPCRs share a common seven-transmembrane-helix topology, they exhibit significant structural diversity that correlates with their functional specialization [60]. Traditional classification systems like the A-F system or GRAFS have organized GPCRs based on sequence similarity and functional properties, but these approaches often fail to capture the subtle structural variations that dictate drug binding and efficacy [60]. This limitation has spurred the development of more quantitative methods, including GM and artificial intelligence (AI)-driven approaches, for classifying GPCR structures with higher precision and biological relevance.

Background: GPCRs as Therapeutic Targets

GPCR Classification Systems

Two primary systems have emerged for classifying GPCRs. The classical A-F system categorizes GPCRs into six classes based on amino acid sequences and functional similarities [59] [60]. Class A (Rhodopsin-like) is the largest family, accounting for approximately 80% of all GPCRs, and includes receptors for hormones, neurotransmitters, and light. Class B (Secretin-like) features a large extracellular domain and binds peptide hormones. Class C (Glutamate) includes metabotropic glutamate receptors and GABA receptors characterized by a large extracellular Venus flytrap domain. Classes D, E, and F represent smaller families including fungal mating pheromone receptors, cAMP receptors, and Frizzled/Smoothened receptors, respectively [59] [60].

The alternative GRAFS system organizes human GPCRs into five families: Glutamate (G), Rhodopsin (R), Adhesion (A), Frizzled/Taste2 (F), and Secretin (S) [60]. The main distinction between these systems lies in the division of Class B into separate Secretin and Adhesion families in the GRAFS system, reflecting their distinct evolutionary histories [60].

GPCR-Targeted Drugs: Current Landscape

The therapeutic importance of GPCRs is underscored by current drug development statistics. According to GPCRdb, the leading database for GPCR research, the FDA has approved 476 drugs targeting GPCRs [59] [61]. Among these, small molecule drugs dominate (92%), while peptide drugs account for 5%, protein drugs for 2%, and only two are antibody drugs, highlighting both the success and limitations of current approaches [59]. Approximately 370 GPCRs are considered druggable targets, suggesting significant potential for expanding the therapeutic repertoire [59]. Recent advances include the development of monoclonal antibodies like Erenumab (targeting CGRP receptor for migraine) and Mogamulizumab (targeting CCR4 for hematologic malignancies), demonstrating growing interest in biologics targeting GPCRs [59].

Methodologies for GPCR Structure Classification

Geometric Morphometrics with Principal Component Analysis

Geometric Morphometrics (GM) is a quantitative approach that measures and analyzes shape variations using Cartesian landmark coordinates [37]. When applied to GPCR structures, GM employs the following methodology:

• Landmark Selection: The Cα atoms of the first and last amino acid residues at each end of the seven transmembrane helices are selected as landmarks, capturing shape variations at both extracellular and intracellular faces [37].
• Procrustes Superimposition: Landmark coordinates undergo orthogonal transformation to standardize size and orientation, enabling comparison between different receptor structures [37].
• Principal Component Analysis (PCA): A covariance matrix is generated from superimposed coordinates, and PCA is performed to identify eigenvectors (principal components) that capture the greatest variation in the data [37].
• Morphospace Construction: The principal components create a morphospace where GPCR structures are positioned based on shape similarities and differences, enabling classification based on structural characteristics rather than just sequence similarity [37].

This method has demonstrated particular utility in classifying GPCR structures based on activation state, bound ligands, and the presence of fusion proteins, with the most significant discrimination observed at the intracellular face where G protein coupling occurs [37].

Figure 1: Geometric Morphometrics Workflow for GPCR Classification

AI and Machine Learning Approaches

Recent advances have introduced various AI and machine learning methods for GPCR structure classification and virtual screening:

• GPCRVS Decision Support System: This platform employs deep neural networks and gradient boosting machines for virtual screening against class A and B GPCRs [62]. The system evaluates compound activity range, pharmacological effect, and binding mode through multiclass classification handling incomplete biological data [62].

• Feature Extraction: AI methods typically use extended connectivity fingerprints (ECFP4) based on Morgan fingerprints to capture compound-specific chemical features [62]. For peptide ligands, N-terminal truncation to 6-residue fragments is employed to standardize feature space while preserving activation "message" sequences [62].

• Binding Mode Prediction: Molecular docking with tools like AutoDock Vina is integrated to predict ligand binding modes at orthosteric and allosteric sites, providing structural insights complementary to ligand-based classification [62].

Minimum Span Clustering (MSC)

Minimum Span Clustering is an unsupervised algorithm that clusters GPCR sequences based on sequence similarity derived from BLAST E-values [60]. MSC creates a protein network where clustering results show strong correlation with GPCR functions, achieving 87.9% consistency with the fourth level of GPCRdb classification [60].

Comparative Performance Analysis

Method Classification Accuracy

Table 1: Classification Performance of Different Methodologies

Methodology	Classification Basis	Accuracy/Consistency	Key Advantages	Limitations
Geometric Morphometrics	3D structural coordinates	High discrimination of activation states and bound ligands [37]	Quantifies subtle conformational changes; Visual morphospace output	Requires resolved structures; Landmark selection critical
AI/ML (GPCRVS)	Chemical structure and fingerprints	Validated on ChEMBL and patent data sets [62]	Handles incomplete data; Predicts activity range and binding modes	"Black box" interpretation; Requires extensive training data
Minimum Span Clustering	Sequence similarity (BLAST E-values)	87.9% consistency with GPCRdb Level 4 [60]	Unsupervised clustering; No need for structural data	Limited to sequence information; May miss structural nuances
Traditional GRAFS/A-F	Sequence and functional similarity	Established reference standard [60]	Biologically validated; Comprehensive coverage	Less sensitive to structural variations

Application Scope and Experimental Requirements

Table 2: Experimental Protocols and Resource Requirements

Methodology	Data Input Requirements	Research Reagent Solutions	Experimental Workflow Complexity
Geometric Morphometrics	Resolved GPCR structures (XYZ coordinates)	- GPCR structures from PDB- MorphoJ software [37]- Custom scripts for landmark extraction	Moderate (requires structural biology expertise)
AI/ML (GPCRVS)	Compound structures (SMILES/3D coordinates)	- ChEMBL database for training [62]- TensorFlow/Keras frameworks [62]- AutoDock Vina for docking [62]	High (requires machine learning and cheminformatics expertise)
Minimum Span Clustering	Protein sequences (FASTA format)	- GPCRdb sequences [60]- BLAST algorithm- Custom MSC implementation [60]	Low to Moderate (primarily bioinformatics)
Traditional Classification	Curated sequence and ligand data	- GPCRdb reference datasets [61]- Manual curation of literature data	Low (utilizes established classification schemes)

Research Reagent Solutions Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Resources for GPCR Structure Classification

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Databases	Function and Application	Access Information
Structural Databases	GPCRdb [61]	Repository of GPCR structures, mutations, ligands, and drug data	https://gpcrdb.org/
GM Analysis Software	MorphoJ [37]	Software for performing geometric morphometric analyses	Freely available
Machine Learning Frameworks	TensorFlow, LightGBM [62]	Deep neural networks and gradient boosting machines for virtual screening	Open-source
Molecular Docking Tools	AutoDock Vina [62]	Predicts ligand binding modes to GPCR structures	Open-source
Ligand Activity Data	ChEMBL [62]	Curated database of bioactive molecules with drug-like properties	Publicly accessible
Sequence Analysis	BLAST, MSC algorithm [60]	Tools for sequence similarity analysis and unsupervised clustering	Publicly accessible
2-Cyanobutanoic acid	2-Cyanobutanoic acid, CAS:51789-75-4, MF:C5H7NO2, MW:113.11 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Discussion: Implications for Drug Discovery

The performance evaluation of Geometric Morphometrics for GPCR structure classification reveals several significant implications for drug discovery. First, GM provides researchers with a quantitative framework for analyzing subtle conformational changes associated with receptor activation and ligand binding [37]. This is particularly valuable for understanding how different ligand types (agonists, antagonists, allosteric modulators) stabilize distinct receptor conformations with specific functional outcomes [37] [62].

Second, the integration of GM with AI methods offers a powerful combination for structure-based drug design. While GM excels at classifying and visualizing structural variations, AI approaches can leverage these classifications to predict novel ligand-receptor interactions and optimize compound selectivity [62]. This synergistic approach addresses the fundamental challenge in GPCR drug discovery: achieving sufficient selectivity against closely related receptor subtypes [62].

Third, GM analysis has demonstrated that certain common experimental modifications, such as thermostabilizing mutations, do not cause significant structural differences compared to non-mutated GPCRs [37]. This provides confidence that such modified receptors retain relevance for drug screening campaigns, potentially accelerating the study of challenging GPCR targets that require stabilization for structural characterization.

Figure 2: Method Integration in GPCR Drug Discovery Pipeline

The application of these advanced classification methods is particularly relevant for addressing polypharmacology - the design of drugs that act on multiple targets simultaneously - which is increasingly recognized as important for complex diseases [63]. By precisely classifying GPCR structures and their ligand binding characteristics, researchers can intentionally design compounds with optimized multi-target profiles while minimizing off-target effects [62] [63].

This performance evaluation demonstrates that Geometric Morphometrics provides a robust, mathematically rigorous approach for classifying GPCR structures that complements traditional sequence-based and emerging AI-driven methods. The key strength of GM lies in its ability to quantitatively capture and visualize subtle structural variations that correlate with functional states, ligand binding, and receptor activation [37]. When integrated with AI-based virtual screening and traditional sequence analysis, GM forms part of a powerful toolkit for advancing GPCR-targeted drug discovery.

As structural biology continues to generate increasingly detailed information about GPCR architecture and dynamics, the application of sophisticated classification methods like Geometric Morphometrics will become increasingly important for translating structural insights into therapeutic advances. The ongoing development and integration of these computational approaches holds significant promise for expanding the druggable GPCR landscape beyond the currently targeted receptors to address unmet medical needs across a broad range of diseases.

The accurate assessment of child nutritional status is a critical component of global public health, enabling the identification of malnutrition and the monitoring of intervention programs. Traditional methods have relied on simple linear anthropometrics, such as mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC), which are practical for field use but offer limited shape information. Geometric morphometrics (GM), a technique based on the statistical analysis of landmark coordinates, has emerged as a powerful alternative for capturing complex biological shapes. This case study situates itself within a broader thesis on the performance evaluation of geometric morphometrics for identification research. It objectively compares the experimental protocols, performance data, and practical applicability of GM against traditional linear anthropometry for the specific task of classifying child nutritional status from arm shape.

Methodological Comparison: Core Techniques and Protocols

The fundamental difference between the two approaches lies in how they quantify morphology. The following table outlines their core characteristics.

Table 1: Fundamental Characteristics of the Assessed Methodologies

Feature	Traditional Linear Anthropometry	Geometric Morphometrics (GM)
Primary Data	Distances (e.g., cm, mm) and skinfold thicknesses [64] [65]	2D or 3D coordinates of anatomical landmarks and semi-landmarks [66] [67]
Shape Capture	Limited to indices and ratios (e.g., Arm Fat Area) [68]	Holistic; captures the complete geometry of a shape [48]
Key Variables	MUAC, Triceps Skinfold (TS), derived Arm Muscle Area (AMA) and Arm Fat Area (AFA) [64] [68]	Procrustes-aligned shape coordinates, centroid size [1] [67]
Data Processing	Simple calculations to derive areas and indices [68]	Complex pipeline involving Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA) and statistical shape analysis [66] [1]
Primary Output	Scalar values for comparison to cut-offs or references [68]	Visualizations of shape change (e.g., deformation grids), classification scores, and statistical models of shape variation [1] [48]

Experimental Protocol for Traditional Arm Anthropometry

The traditional method is a well-standardized, multi-step process [69] [68]:

• Arm Identification: The non-dominant arm is typically used.
• Landmark Identification: The acromion (bony protrusion on the shoulder) and the olecranon process (tip of the elbow) are palpated.
• Midpoint Marking: The distance between the acromion and olecranon is measured, and the midpoint is marked on the skin.
• Measurement:
  • MUAC: A non-stretchable insertion tape is snugly wrapped around the arm at the marked midpoint, and the circumference is recorded to the nearest millimeter [68].
  • Triceps Skinfold (TS): At the same midpoint, a skinfold caliper is used to grasp a vertical fold of skin and subcutaneous fat. The thickness is recorded to the nearest 0.1 mm [64] [65].
• Derivation of Indices: MUAC and TS are used to calculate proxy measures for body composition [68]:
  • Total Upper Arm Area (TUA) = MUAC² / (4Ï€)
  • Arm Muscle Area (AMA) = [MUAC - (TS × Ï€)]² / (4Ï€)
  • Arm Fat Area (AFA) = TUA - AMA

Experimental Protocol for Geometric Morphometrics of Arm Shape

The GM approach, as applied in recent studies, involves a more complex workflow focused on image capture and coordinate data processing [66] [69] [67]:

• Subject Positioning and Image Capture: The child's arm is positioned and photographed or 3D-scanned from a standardized frontal view. The BINA study highlights the importance of training, motivated staff, and adequate monitoring to minimize error at this stage [69].
• Landmarking: Anatomical and/or osteologically-based landmarks are digitally identified on the image. For example, one study on children's body shape used 36 anatomical landmarks along with 108 semi-landmarks to capture the curvature of the body, including the arm, in a frontal view [67].
• Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA): This core GM step superimposes all landmark configurations by scaling them to a unitless size (Centroid Size), translating them to a common centroid, and rotating them to minimize the sum of squared distances between corresponding landmarks [1]. This process separates shape from size, rotation, and position.
• Statistical Shape Analysis and Classification: The resulting Procrustes shape coordinates are analyzed using multivariate statistics (e.g., Principal Component Analysis, discriminant analysis). For nutritional classification, a model is trained on a reference sample to classify new, "out-of-sample" individuals based on their arm shape [66].

The following diagram illustrates the core workflow of a geometric morphometric analysis for this application.

Performance and Validation: A Data-Driven Comparison

The relative performance of these methods can be evaluated based on their agreement with reference body composition techniques and their classification power.

Predictive Performance Against Reference Methods

A key study directly evaluated traditional arm anthropometry by comparing it to reference methods like dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and a four-component model [64] [65]. The results demonstrate that traditional measures are effective proxies for fat mass but perform poorly for fat-free mass.

Table 2: Predictive Performance of Traditional Arm Anthropometry vs. Reference Methods [64] [65]

Anthropometric Measure	Correlation with Total Fat Mass (FM)	% Variance in Total FM Explained (Healthy Children)	% Variance in Total Fat-Free Mass (FFM) Explained (Healthy Children)
Mid-Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC)	r = 0.78 - 0.92	63%	16%
Triceps Skinfold (TS)	r = 0.78 - 0.92	61%	Not Reported
Arm Fat Area (AFA)	r = 0.78 - 0.92	67%	Not Reported
Arm Muscle Area (AMA)	Good correlation with arm FFM (r=0.68-0.82)	Not Applicable	24%

While similar validation tables against reference methods for the GM approach are less common in the provided results, its primary advantage lies in superior shape discrimination. GM can disentangle shape variation due to different underlying causes, such as allometry (size-related shape change) and population origin [67]. After removing the effect of size, GM was able to identify significant shape differences related to population origin, which linear measurements might conflate with overall size [67]. Furthermore, a specific GM approach has been developed to address the critical challenge of classifying new individuals who were not part of the original sample, a common real-world scenario in nutritional screening [66].

Qualitative Comparison of Strengths and Limitations

Beyond quantitative metrics, the two methods differ significantly in their operational characteristics.

Table 3: Operational Comparison of the Two Methodologies

Aspect	Traditional Linear Anthropometry	Geometric Morphometrics (GM)
Equipment Cost & Complexity	Low (tape, caliper) [68]	High (3D scanner, computer, software) [69]
Field Suitability	Excellent [68]	Currently Limited (but research apps exist) [66]
Training & Expertise Required	Moderate (standardized protocol needed) [69]	High (landmarking homology, complex statistics) [48]
Susceptibility to Measurement Error	Yes (e.g., tape tightness, skinfold pinch) [68]	Yes (landmark placement precision) [4]
Primary Advantage	Rapid, inexpensive, proven in field surveillance [68]	Holistic shape capture, visualizability, high discriminatory power [66] [48]
Primary Limitation	Poor predictor of fat-free mass; assumes arm is a simple cylinder [64] [68]	Complex data processing; sample size and landmarking choices impact results [66] [4]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful implementation of these methodologies in a research context requires specific tools and materials.

Table 4: Essential Research Materials and Solutions

Item	Function/Description	Relevance to Method
Non-Stretchable Insertion Tape	Measures Mid-Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) to the nearest mm. Specialized color-coded tapes exist for rapid nutritional screening [68].	Traditional Anthropometry
Skinfold Calipers	Measures the thickness of the subcutaneous fat layer at the triceps site [64] [65].	Traditional Anthropometry
3D Handheld Scanner	Captures the 3D surface geometry of the arm/body (e.g., Structure Sensor used in the BINA study) [69].	Geometric Morphometrics
Digital Camera & Photostand	Captures standardized 2D images for 2D GM analysis, ensuring consistent angle and scale [4].	Geometric Morphometrics
Landmarking Software	Software for digitizing landmark coordinates on 2D images (e.g., tpsDig2) or 3D models [4].	Geometric Morphometrics
GM Analysis Software	Platforms for performing Procrustes superimposition and statistical shape analysis (e.g., MorphoJ, R package 'geomorph') [1] [4].	Geometric Morphometrics
Gold-Standard Body Composition Analyzer	Device such as a Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) scanner to validate anthropometric measures against precise FM and FFM readings [64] [65].	Validation for Both Methods

This case study demonstrates a clear trade-off between the practical utility of traditional linear anthropometry and the analytical power of geometric morphometrics. For large-scale nutritional surveillance and screening where speed, cost, and simplicity are paramount, MUAC remains an indispensable tool. However, for research aimed at a deeper understanding of the complex morphological changes associated with nutritional status, body composition, and growth, GM offers a superior, albeit more resource-intensive, approach. Its ability to provide a holistic, visually interpretable analysis of shape makes it a potent tool for identification research. The ongoing development of GM methods for out-of-sample classification and their integration into smartphone applications [66] points toward a future where the deep analytical power of GM could become more accessible for field-based public health action.

Addressing Challenges and Optimizing Classification Performance

The Critical Challenge of Out-of-Sample Classification in Real-World Scenarios

In the field of geometric morphometrics (GM), the transition from research validation to real-world application presents a formidable obstacle: the out-of-sample classification problem. While GM has proven highly effective for distinguishing groups within carefully controlled study samples, classifying new individuals not included in the original analysis remains methodologically challenging. This critical challenge arises because standard GM classification protocols rely on sample-dependent processing steps, particularly Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA), which aligns all specimens in a dataset simultaneously using information from the entire sample [70]. Consequently, classification rules derived from a training sample cannot be directly applied to new individuals without conducting a new global alignment—a significant limitation for developing practical tools for field researchers, diagnosticians, and applied scientists [70].

The implications of this challenge extend across multiple disciplines. In medical applications, GM techniques could potentially help localize critical structures like the facial nerve at Zuker's point to prevent iatrogenic injury during surgery [71]. In taxonomy, GM supports identification of isolated fossil shark teeth where qualitative assessment alone may be insufficient [72]. For public health, GM offers promise for nutritional assessment in children through body shape analysis [70]. In all these real-world scenarios, the ability to accurately classify new, previously unseen specimens is paramount—making the out-of-sample problem not merely methodological but fundamentally practical.

Methodological Foundations: Geometric Morphometrics Workflows

Core Geometric Morphometrics Pipeline

Geometric morphometrics employs landmark-based approaches to quantify biological shape through the capture and analysis of Cartesian coordinates [71]. The foundational methodology involves placing homologous landmarks on biological structures, followed by Procrustes superimposition to align configurations by translating, scaling, and rotating them to remove non-shape variation [1]. The resulting Procrustes coordinates serve as the basis for statistical analysis of pure shape variation [71].

The standard GM workflow typically includes: (1) landmark digitization on all specimens; (2) Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA) of the complete dataset; (3) statistical analysis of shape variables; and (4) classifier construction using methods like linear discriminant analysis, often validated via leave-one-out cross-validation [70]. This approach works well for research contexts where all specimens are available simultaneously but creates fundamental limitations for classifying new specimens in applied settings.

The Out-of-Sample Classification Problem

The fundamental technical challenge in out-of-sample classification stems from the sample-dependent nature of Procrustes alignment. When a new specimen needs classification, its raw landmark coordinates cannot be directly compared to the Procrustes-aligned coordinates of the training sample. The specimen must first be aligned to the same shape space as the training data, but this requires a global alignment that incorporates the new specimen—effectively changing the reference frame of the original analysis [70].

This problem is particularly acute in applied settings such as the SAM Photo Diagnosis App Program, which aims to develop a smartphone tool for identifying nutritional status in children from arm shape images. In such real-world applications, the classification model must evaluate new children who were not part of the original training sample, yet the standard GM workflow provides no straightforward method for obtaining registered coordinates for these out-of-sample individuals in the training sample's shape space [70].

Comparative Analysis: Methodological Approaches and Performance

In-Sample Versus Out-of-Sample Performance

The critical distinction between in-sample and out-of-sample performance extends beyond geometric morphometrics to predictive modeling broadly. Evidence from quantitative fields like algorithmic trading reveals dramatic performance disparities between in-sample and out-of-sample results. One comprehensive study of 888 trading strategies found that in-sample performance explained only 1-2% of out-of-sample behaviors for metrics like Sharpe ratio and annual returns [73]. This demonstrates the pervasive risk of overfitting and the importance of rigorous out-of-sample validation.

In GM applications, similar challenges emerge. While in-sample classification accuracy often appears excellent, the true test of a model's utility lies in its ability to generalize to new data. The problem is compounded by the fact that many GM studies rely solely on in-sample validation methods like leave-one-out cross-validation conducted after Procrustes alignment of the entire dataset [70].

Table 1: Performance Comparison Between In-Sample and Out-of-Sample Contexts

Performance Metric	In-Sample Context	Out-of-Sample Context	Implications for GM
Classification Accuracy	Typically high (e.g., >90% in leave-one-out) [70]	Often substantially lower [73]	Overoptimistic performance expectations
Methodological Foundation	Stable after Procrustes alignment [1]	Requires specialized registration approaches [70]	Standard protocols insufficient for new specimens
Validation Approach	Leave-one-out cross-validation common [70]	True external validation required [73]	More rigorous validation needed for applications
Practical Implementation	Straightforward within research context [26]	Requires additional processing steps [70]	Barriers to real-world deployment

Proposed Solutions for Out-of-Sample Classification

Several methodological approaches have emerged to address the out-of-sample challenge in geometric morphometrics:

• Template Registration Method: One proposed solution involves using different template configurations from the study sample as targets for registering out-of-sample raw coordinates [70]. This approach requires careful selection of template specimens that adequately represent population variation.

• Functional Data Geometric Morphometrics (FDGM): This innovative approach converts 2D landmark data into continuous curves represented as linear combinations of basis functions [74]. FDGM may better capture subtle shape variations and has demonstrated promising classification performance when combined with machine learning techniques.

• Machine Learning Integration: Combining GM with machine learning classifiers (naïve Bayes, support vector machine, random forest, generalized linear model) using predicted principal component scores has shown enhanced classification capabilities [74]. This approach can leverage both landmark and outline-based shape information.

• VIKOR-Based Classification Framework: Borrowing from operations research, a VIKOR-based classifier performs in-sample predictions while a Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) classifier handles out-of-sample predictions trained on the risk class predictions from the VIKOR classifier [75]. This hybrid approach has demonstrated high predictive performance in bankruptcy prediction and could be adapted for morphometric applications.

Table 2: Methodological Comparisons for Out-of-Sample Classification

Method	Key Principle	Advantages	Limitations
Template Registration	Aligns new specimens to representative templates from training sample [70]	Conceptually straightforward; maintains geometric framework	Template selection critical; potential information loss
FDGM with Machine Learning	Landmarks converted to continuous curves analyzed with machine learning [74]	Captures subtle shape variations; enhanced discrimination power	Computational complexity; requires larger samples
VIKOR-CBR Framework	Multi-criteria decision making for in-sample with case-based reasoning for out-of-sample [75]	Strong theoretical foundation; proven in financial applications	Less established in morphometrics; implementation complexity
Enhanced Landmark Protocols	Careful landmark selection to maximize discriminatory power [72]	Builds on established GM principles; interpretable results	May not fully resolve alignment dependencies

Case Studies: Applications Across Disciplines

Taxonomic Identification in Palaeontology

In palaeontology, geometric morphometrics has proven valuable for supporting taxonomic identification of isolated fossil shark teeth, where traditional qualitative assessment alone may be insufficient [72]. One study comparing traditional and geometric morphometrics on the same sample of lamniform shark teeth found that GM successfully recovered the same taxonomic separation while capturing additional shape variables that traditional methods overlooked [72]. This application demonstrates GM's power for discriminating morphologically similar taxa but also highlights the out-of-sample challenge—new fossil discoveries must be classifiable without incorporating them into the original analysis.

Medical and Surgical Applications

In surgical contexts, GM has been employed to analyze the positioning of the facial nerve relative to Zuker's point—a surface landmark used to localize facial nerve branches during procedures [71]. This application requires understanding typical spatial relationships and variations, essentially creating classification rules for nerve position based on facial morphology. The ability to accurately predict nerve location for new patients (out-of-sample) is crucial for preventing iatrogenic injury, making this a high-stakes example of the out-of-sample challenge [71].

Nutritional Status Assessment

The SAM Photo Diagnosis App Program represents a direct attempt to overcome the out-of-sample classification challenge in a public health context [70]. This initiative aims to develop a smartphone application for identifying severe acute malnutrition in children aged 6-59 months from images of their left arms. The practical constraints of this application necessitate methods for classifying new children not included in the original training sample, highlighting the critical need for robust out-of-sample methodologies in GM [70].

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for GM Classification Studies

Tool/Category	Specific Examples	Function in Research	Considerations for Out-of-Sample Applications
Landmark Digitization Software	TPS Dig2 [26] [72]	Captures landmark coordinates from specimen images	Standardized protocols essential for consistency across studies
Statistical Analysis Platforms	R with geomorph package [4] [71]; MorphoJ [26]	Procrustes alignment; shape statistics; classifier development	Open-source platforms facilitate method replication and sharing
Shape Analysis Techniques	Principal Component Analysis [26] [71]; Linear Discriminant Analysis [70]	Dimension reduction; group discrimination	Choice of method affects generalization capability
Machine Learning Integrations	Naïve Bayes; SVM; Random Forest [74]	Enhanced classification performance	Potential for improved out-of-sample performance with sufficient training data
Validation Methodologies	Leave-one-out cross-validation [70]; True external validation [73]	Performance assessment	External validation essential for assessing real-world utility

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

Standard Geometric Morphometrics Protocol

A typical GM study follows a systematic protocol beginning with specimen selection and landmark digitization. For example, in fossil shark tooth analysis, researchers digitize homologous landmarks and semilandmarks along tooth contours using software like TPS Dig2 [72]. The landmark data then undergoes Generalized Procrustes Analysis to remove non-shape variation, followed by principal component analysis to explore shape variation patterns [72]. Classification typically employs discriminant analysis on the Procrustes coordinates, with validation via leave-one-out cross-validation [70].

Integrated Out-of-Sample Classification Workflow

To address the out-of-sample challenge, researchers have proposed modified workflows that explicitly account for new specimens. The functional data geometric morphometrics approach follows an innovative pathway that converts discrete landmarks into continuous curves before analysis [74].

The critical challenge of out-of-sample classification in geometric morphometrics represents both a methodological limitation and an opportunity for innovation. Future research directions should focus on: (1) developing standardized protocols for out-of-sample classification in GM; (2) enhancing integration between GM and machine learning approaches; (3) establishing benchmark datasets for evaluating out-of-sample performance; and (4) promoting rigorous external validation as a standard practice in morphometric studies.

The evidence from diverse applications—from taxonomic identification to medical applications and public health—demonstrates both the profound importance and considerable difficulty of reliable out-of-sample classification. As geometric morphometrics increasingly transitions from pure research to applied contexts, addressing this challenge will be essential for realizing the full potential of quantitative shape analysis in real-world scenarios. The methodologies and comparative approaches discussed herein provide a foundation for advancing this critical frontier in morphometrics research.

Selecting the optimal number of Principal Component (PC) axes is a critical step in dimensionality reduction that directly impacts the performance of downstream analytical models. This guide provides a comparative analysis of methods for determining PC retention, with a specific focus on maximizing cross-validation accuracy within geometric morphometrics research. We evaluate automated selection rules, cross-validation techniques, and integration with supervised learning pipelines, presenting experimental data from biological identification studies. For researchers in taxonomy and forensic science, the strategic selection of PCs—tuned as a hyperparameter within a cross-validation framework—proves superior to traditional variance-based thresholds, enhancing classification accuracy while maintaining model generalizability.

In the context of geometric morphometrics for identification research, dimensionality reduction via Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is a foundational step for analyzing shape variation. The central challenge lies in selecting the number of principal components (PCs) to retain—a decision that balances the capture of meaningful biological signal against the risk of incorporating noise. An insufficient number of components may discard discriminative shape information, while an excess leads to model overfitting and diminished generalizability. Cross-validation (CV) emerges as a powerful, objective paradigm for this selection, moving beyond traditional heuristics by directly linking dimensionality reduction to the performance of subsequent classification or clustering tasks [76]. This guide objectively compares the performance of various PC selection strategies, providing a framework for researchers to implement cross-validation protocols that maximize identification accuracy in morphometric studies.

Comparative Analysis of PC Selection Methods

The performance of different PC selection methods can be evaluated based on their accuracy, stability, and computational efficiency. The table below summarizes the core characteristics of the primary approaches.

Table 1: Comparison of Principal Component Selection Methods

Method	Core Principle	Advantages	Limitations	Typical Use Case
Variance Explained (e.g., >95%)	Retains components until a cumulative variance threshold is met [77].	Intuitive; computationally simple; unsupervised.	No direct link to downstream task performance; may retain irrelevant components.	Initial data exploration and visualization.
Scree Plot / Elbow Method	Identifies an "elbow" point where eigenvalues drop off sharply [77].	Visual and straightforward.	Subjective; difficult to automate; no performance guarantee.	Preliminary analysis in unsupervised studies.
Cross-Validation in Supervised Pipeline	Tunes the number of PCs as a hyperparameter to maximize validation accuracy [77].	Directly optimizes for predictive performance; reduces overfitting.	Computationally intensive; requires a labeled dataset.	Supervised classification tasks (e.g., species or sex identification).
Speckled/Holdout CV for PCA	Holds out random data elements, reconstructs them with different PC counts, and chooses the number that minimizes reconstruction error [78].	Model-agnostic; provides an objective measure for unsupervised learning.	Computationally complex; not implemented in standard PCA libraries.	Unsupervised settings to determine intrinsic data dimensionality.

The application of these methods yields different performance outcomes. A study on sex estimation from 3D tooth shapes found that using cross-validation to tune the number of components within a Random Forest pipeline achieved high accuracy (97.95% for mandibular second premolars) [79]. In contrast, a simpler approach of retaining components explaining 95% of the variance might only require 6 components but could sacrifice a few percentage points in final model accuracy compared to a CV-tuned model that selected 9 components [77]. The "speckled" cross-validation method has been shown to successfully identify the true latent dimensionality in simulated data, preventing overfitting by selecting the point where test set reconstruction error begins to rise [78].

Experimental Protocols for Performance Evaluation

To ensure reproducible and objective comparisons, researchers should adhere to standardized experimental protocols. The following workflows detail the key methodologies for evaluating PC selection strategies.

Supervised Classification Pipeline with CV

This protocol is used when the research goal is classification (e.g., species, sex, or disease identification).

Figure 1: Workflow for Supervised PC Selection. The number of PCs is tuned as a hyperparameter within a cross-validation loop to maximize classification accuracy.

Detailed Methodology:

• Data Preparation: Scale the raw morphometric data (e.g., landmark coordinates) to have a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one. This is critical for PCA [77] [80].
• Pipeline Construction: Construct a scikit-learn Pipeline that chains two steps: a PCA() transformer and a classifier (e.g., LogisticRegression, RandomForestClassifier, or SVC) [77].
• Hyperparameter Tuning: Use a search method like GridSearchCV. Define a parameter grid that specifies a range of values for pca__n_components (e.g., from 1 to 15) and potentially hyperparameters for the classifier [77].
• Cross-Validation & Evaluation: The grid search performs k-fold cross-validation, training and evaluating the pipeline with each combination of hyperparameters. The optimal number of PCs is the value that yields the highest average cross-validation accuracy [77].

Unsupervised Speckled Cross-Validation

This protocol is for determining intrinsic dimensionality in the absence of labels, such as in exploratory shape analysis.

Figure 2: Workflow for Unsupervised PC Selection via Speckled CV. Random data points are held out, and the model is evaluated on its ability to reconstruct them.

Detailed Methodology:

• Holdout Pattern: Randomly set a portion of the elements in the data matrix Y to be missing (NaN), creating a "speckled" holdout pattern [78].
• Model Fitting & Reconstruction: For a candidate number of components k, fit a PCA model to the non-missing data. Use this model to reconstruct the held-out values [78].
• Error Calculation: Compute the reconstruction error (e.g., Mean Squared Error) between the original held-out values and their PCA-reconstructed estimates.
• Optimal Selection: Repeat steps 2-3 for a range of k values. The optimal number of components is the one that minimizes the reconstruction error on the held-out data, indicating the point beyond which added components only model noise [78].

Case Studies in Geometric Morphometrics

Sex Estimation from 3D Dental Landmarks

A 2025 study demonstrated the efficacy of cross-validated PC selection for sex estimation. The research used 3D landmarks from nine permanent tooth classes in 120 individuals [79].

• Protocol: Landmark coordinates underwent Procrustes superimposition. The principal components from this analysis were then used to train multiple AI models (Random Forest, SVM, ANN). The models' performance was rigorously evaluated using fivefold cross-validation [79].
• Outcome: The Random Forest model, with the number of features (PCs) tuned via its internal bagging mechanism, achieved the highest accuracy of 97.95% for mandibular second premolars. This underscores how cross-validation at multiple stages (PC selection and model training) leads to superior performance [79].

Species Identification in Pest Surveys

Research on wing geometric morphometrics for identifying invasive moth species (Chrysodeixis chalcites) versus native species validated the use of a limited number of landmarks [81].

• Protocol: Seven venation landmarks were digitized from wing images. The coordinates were analyzed in MorphoJ, which utilizes Procrustes ANOVA and PCA as part of its standard morphometric workflow. The resulting PC scores were then used for classification [81].
• Outcome: The study successfully distinguished the invasive species from native lookalikes, validating GM as a tool for pest identification. This demonstrates that a parsimonious model, informed by domain knowledge and statistical validation, can be highly effective for identification tasks [81].

The Scientist's Toolkit

The following table details essential reagents, software, and analytical tools for conducting geometric morphometrics research with cross-validation.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Geometric Morphometrics

Tool Name	Type	Primary Function	Application in PC Selection
MorphoJ	Software	Comprehensive software for geometric morphometric analysis [79] [82].	Performs Procrustes alignment and initial PCA on landmark data. Exports PC scores for further analysis.
3D Slicer	Software	Open-source platform for 3D image visualization and data marking [79].	Used to identify and record 3D anatomical landmark coordinates from scan data.
scikit-learn (Python)	Programming Library	Machine learning library containing PCA, model pipelines, and GridSearchCV [77].	Implements the full supervised pipeline for tuning the number of PCs and evaluating model accuracy.
tpsDig2	Software	Tool for digitizing landmarks from 2D image files [82].	Collects 2D coordinate data from images for subsequent morphometric analysis.
Procrustes Superimposition	Algorithm	Removes non-shape variations (position, rotation, scale) from landmark data [79] [7].	A critical preprocessing step before PCA to ensure shape variation is analyzed correctly.
Cross-Validation (e.g., 5-fold)	Statistical Protocol	A method for resampling data to assess model generalizability [79] [77].	The core framework for objectively selecting the number of PCs without overfitting.

The comparative analysis presented in this guide leads to a clear conclusion: selecting principal component axes to maximize cross-validation accuracy is a superior strategy for performance-driven geometric morphometrics research. While traditional variance-based rules offer simplicity for exploration, integrating PC selection as a tunable hyperparameter within a supervised learning pipeline directly optimizes for the end goal—accurate and reliable biological identification. The experimental data from real-world case studies in sex estimation and species identification confirm that this approach yields state-of-the-art results. For the scientific community, adopting these cross-validation protocols ensures that dimensionality reduction is not merely a procedural step, but a strategic choice that enhances the rigor and predictive power of morphological research.

Geometric morphometrics (GM) has revolutionized the quantitative analysis of form across biological and medical research, enabling the precise quantification of morphological variation using Cartesian landmark coordinates [1] [83]. The reliability of these analyses, however, fundamentally depends on the repeatability of landmark placement by the same operator (intra-operator error) and between different operators (inter-operator error) [84]. Despite the widespread application of GM, the influence of operator bias on data reproducibility is rarely considered systematically, creating potential for inaccurate results and misinterpretation of biologically meaningful variation [85] [84]. This comparison guide synthesizes current empirical evidence to objectively evaluate intra- and inter-operator reliability in geometric morphometrics, providing researchers with methodological standards and practical frameworks for assessing measurement error in their identification research.

Quantitative Comparison of Repeatability Metrics

Table 1: Experimental Studies Assessing Operator Error in Geometric Morphometrics

Study Organism	Sample Size	Landmark Type	Inter-Operator Error Effect	Intra-Operator Error Effect	Statistical Analysis
Atlantic salmon [84]	291 fish	15 fixed + 7 semi-landmarks	Significant systematic differences in mean body shape (p < 0.05)	Non-significant (p > 0.05)	Repeated measures tests; Vector angles of shape change
Mustelid humeri [86]	10 specimens	Curve and surface semi-landmarks	Not tested	Not tested	Morphospace comparison
Human craniofacial structures [85]	Synthetic datasets	Various landmark schemes	Inconsistent results across four toolboxes	Not tested	Validation framework with ground truth
Sessile oak leaves [6]	88 leaves	11 landmarks	Not tested	"Completely negligible"	Procrustes ANOVA

Magnitude and Impact of Measurement Errors

Table 2: Relative Magnitude and Consequences of Operator Error Types

Error Type	Relative Magnitude	Primary Causes	Impact on Biological Interpretation	Recommended Mitigation
Inter-Operator	Substantial - Can exceed biological effects [84]	Different interpretation of landmark homology; Variable training [84]	Can obscure or mimic true biological variation; Risk of false conclusions [84]	Multiple operators digitize subset of all groups; Standardized training [84]
Intra-Operator	Modest to Negligible [6] [84]	Fatigue; Time between sessions; Inconsistent application of criteria [84]	Minimal impact on overall results when protocols followed consistently [84]	Regular recalibration; Repeated measurements for error assessment [84]

Experimental Protocols for Repeatability Assessment

Standardized Workflow for Error Quantification

The following experimental protocol synthesizes best practices for assessing both intra- and inter-operator error in geometric morphometric studies:

Specimen Preparation and Imaging:

• Standardize imaging conditions (distance, angle, lighting) using fixed camera mounts [84]
• Use scale references in all images for calibration
• For live specimens, minimize movement using appropriate sedation when ethically permissible [84]
• Randomize image order before landmarking to blind operators to group affiliations and prevent systematic bias [84]

Landmarking Scheme Development:

• Define landmarks using unambiguous anatomical descriptions
• Combine fixed landmarks with curve and surface semi-landmarks where necessary [86]
• Create detailed visual guides with examples and non-examples for each landmark
• Pilot test the scheme with multiple operators to identify problematic landmarks

Data Collection Protocol:

• For intra-operator error: The same operator landmarks a subset of images (recommended: 10-20% of total) multiple times with adequate time between sessions (e.g., 2+ weeks) [6] [84]
• For inter-operator error: Multiple independent operators landmark the entire dataset using identical schemes and training materials [84]
• Implement calibration sessions where operators practice on training images not included in the actual study

Statistical Analysis:

• Perform Procrustes superimposition to align landmark configurations [1] [6]
• Use repeated measures MANOVA to test for systematic differences between operators [84]
• Calculate measurement error as a percentage of total shape variation using Procrustes ANOVA [6]
• Compare vectors of shape change between operators using angular comparisons [84]

Figure 1: Experimental workflow for assessing intra- and inter-operator error in geometric morphometrics

Case Study: Atlantic Salmon Morphometrics

A comprehensive study on Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) illustrates a robust experimental design for error assessment [84]:

Imaging Protocol:

• Live fish sedated and photographed freehand from approximately 30 cm directly above
• Fujifilm FinePix XP130 Compact Digital Camera used with reference scale
• Left side of 291 fish photographed (144 from River Spey, 147 from River Oykel)

Landmarking Scheme:

• 15 fixed landmarks and 7 semi-landmarks placed on each image
• Four independent operators digitized same images using identical scheme
• Image order randomized using tpsUtil v. 1.78 to blind operators to river origin

Error Assessment Design:

• Intra-operator: Each operator landmarked first 10 fish from each river three times
• Inter-operator: All four operators digitized complete dataset of 291 fish
• Statistical analysis included repeated measures tests and vector angle comparisons

Key Finding: Despite significant inter-operator differences in mean body shape, all operators consistently detected the same small but statistically significant morphological differences between fish from the two rivers, demonstrating that biological signals can persist through operator bias when standardized protocols are followed [84].

Software Solutions for Geometric Morphometrics

Table 3: Essential Software Tools for Geometric Morphometric Analysis

Software Tool	Primary Function	Application in Repeatability Studies	Platform
MorphoJ [87]	Integrated geometric morphometrics	Procrustes superimposition; multivariate statistical analysis; visualization	Windows, Mac, Linux
tpsDig [84]	Landmark digitization	Collecting 2D landmark coordinates from images	Windows
tpsUtil [84]	File management	Randomizing image order for blinding operators	Windows
R packages (Morpho) [86]	Statistical analysis	Advanced GM analyses; sliding semi-landmarks; customizable statistics	R environment
Stratovan Checkpoint [83]	3D landmarking	Placing landmarks on 3D reconstructions and CT scans	Windows

Statistical Framework for Error Assessment

Procrustes ANOVA: Partitioning variance components to quantify measurement error relative to biological variation [6]

MANOVA of Procrustes Coordinates: Testing for systematic differences between operators in multivariate space [84]

Vector Angle Comparisons: Quantifying similarity in directions of shape change detected by different operators [84]

Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC): Measuring consistency and agreement for continuous data

Discussion and Research Implications

Interpretation of Repeatability Evidence

The empirical evidence consistently demonstrates that inter-operator error presents a more significant threat to geometric morphometric reliability than intra-operator error [84]. While individual operators typically show high precision in repeated measurements, systematic differences between operators can introduce bias that potentially obscures biological signals or creates artificial group differences [84]. This underscores the critical importance of standardized training and calibration when multiple operators are involved in data collection.

Notably, the persistence of biological signals despite operator bias offers a promising perspective for morphometric research. The Atlantic salmon study demonstrated that different operators consistently identified the same population differences, suggesting that carefully designed studies can produce reproducible findings even when significant inter-operator error exists [84]. This reliability appears dependent on operators following identical landmarking schemes and being blinded to group affiliations during data collection.

Recommendations for Research Practice

For Single-Operator Studies:

• Conduct intra-operator repeatability assessment on a subset of specimens
• Space repeated measurements temporally to assess consistency
• Report measurement error as a component of total variance

For Multi-Operator Studies:

• Implement standardized training with explicit visual examples
• Have all operators digitize a common subset of specimens across all experimental groups
• Use statistical methods to account for operator effects in final analyses
• Avoid partitioning specimens by operator across experimental groups

For Data Sharing and Collaboration:

• Develop detailed landmarking protocols with visual guides
• Archive raw landmark coordinates alongside processed data
• Report operator-specific variance components in publications

The evolving methodology for assessing measurement error in geometric morphometrics highlights the field's maturation toward more rigorous and reproducible research practices. As morphometric applications expand into developmental biology [88], neuroimaging [85], and taxonomic identification [81], establishing reliability standards becomes increasingly crucial for valid biological interpretation.

Geometric morphometrics (GM) has become a cornerstone of quantitative shape analysis in biological, medical, and paleontological research. For structures lacking discrete anatomical landmarks, outline-based methods provide powerful alternatives for capturing shape information. Among these, Fourier analysis and semi-landmark approaches represent two fundamentally different paradigms for quantifying and analyzing contours. This comparison guide examines their methodological foundations, performance characteristics, and practical implementation within the context of identification research, drawing on experimental data from morphological studies.

Methodological Foundations

Fourier Analysis

Fourier analysis describes outlines using mathematical functions, typically by decomposing a contour into a series of sine and cosine waves of increasing frequency. The resulting Fourier coefficients capture shape information at different spatial scales, with lower-frequency harmonics describing gross shape and higher frequencies capturing finer details [89] [90]. Elliptical Fourier Analysis (EFA) represents one of the most popular implementations, expressing a closed contour as a sum of ellipses, each defined by four coefficients per harmonic [91]. This method requires no biological homology of points along the contour, making it particularly suitable for structures without clearly defined landmarks.

Semi-Landmark Approaches

Semi-landmark methods quantify outlines using discrete points that are allowed to "slide" along tangent directions or curves to minimize bending energy or Procrustes distance [86] [92]. Unlike traditional landmarks that represent biologically homologous points, semi-landmarks achieve spatial homology through this sliding procedure, enabling the analysis of curves and surfaces where anatomical correspondence is ambiguous [86]. Two primary alignment criteria dominate: bending energy minimization (BEM), which minimizes the metaphorical energy required to deform one shape into another, and perpendicular projection (PP), which projects points onto a mean reference curve [89].

Table 1: Fundamental Characteristics of Outline Methods

Characteristic	Fourier Analysis	Semi-Landmark Approaches
Data Representation	Mathematical functions (harmonic coefficients)	Point coordinates (sliding points)
Homology Concept	No point correspondence required	Spatial homology after sliding
Primary Alignment	Function normalization	Bending energy minimization or Procrustes distance
Shape Visualization	Reconstruction from coefficients	Thin-plate spline deformation grids
Software Options	Momocs R package, various standalone programs	Morpho J, Edgewarp, EVAN Toolbox, geomorph

Performance Comparison

Classification Accuracy

Direct experimental comparisons reveal nuanced performance differences. A comprehensive study evaluating age-related differences in ovenbird feather shapes found that classification success was not highly dependent on the specific outline method used [89]. Both semi-landmark methods (BEM and PP) and elliptical Fourier methods produced roughly equal classification rates when combined with appropriate dimensionality reduction techniques. The specific implementation details, including point acquisition method and number of points, showed minimal impact on discriminatory power.

Methodological Considerations

Each method presents distinct advantages and limitations for identification research:

Fourier Analysis

• Advantages: Provides a mathematically compact representation; naturally handles smooth contours; invariant to starting point position (for EFA); does not require point correspondence [91] [90]
• Limitations: Requires a large number of harmonics for complex or serrated outlines; coefficients lack direct biological interpretation; performs poorly with open curves; susceptible to interference from contour noise [91]

Semi-Landmark Methods

• Advantages: Allows integration with traditional landmark data; preserves geometric relationships; provides intuitive visualizations of shape differences; handles both open and closed curves [86] [92]
• Limitations: Requires careful sliding procedures; more computationally intensive; results may be sensitive to curve discretization and sliding criteria [89] [86]

Experimental Protocols and Applications

Case Study: Avian Feather Identification

A methodological study established a standardized protocol for comparing outline methods using rectrices from ovenbirds (Seiurus aurocapilla) [89]. The experimental workflow encompassed:

• Image Acquisition: High-resolution photographs of feathers under standardized conditions
• Outline Digitization: Three approaches were compared: manual tracing, template-based digitization (equal-angle radii), and automated edge detection
• Shape Representation: Application of both Fourier and semi-landmark methods to the same dataset
• Dimensionality Reduction: Principal component analysis to address the high dimensionality of outline data
• Classification: Canonical variates analysis with cross-validation to assess age-group discrimination

This study demonstrated that both methodological families could successfully detect known age-related shape differences, with semi-landmark methods showing slight practical advantages for integration with traditional landmark-based datasets [89].

Case Study: Fish Otolith Identification

Research on anchovy species (Engraulis spp.) in the Eastern Mediterranean employed Fourier analysis of otolith shape alongside genetic markers [93] [94]. The protocol included:

• Otolith Extraction: Removal of otoliths from specimens of known species
• Image Processing: Standardized imaging and contour extraction
• Fourier Decomposition: Elliptical Fourier analysis to generate harmonic coefficients
• Statistical Classification: Discriminant analysis of Fourier descriptors The analysis achieved 100% reclassification success for certain age groups, confirming strong congruence between shape-based identification and genetic differentiation [93].

The following diagram illustrates the generalized workflow for comparative outline studies integrating both methodological approaches:

Dimensionality Reduction Strategies

The high dimensionality of outline data presents statistical challenges, particularly for canonical variates analysis (CVA) which requires more specimens than variables. Research indicates that the choice of dimensionality reduction approach significantly impacts classification performance [89].

Comparative Performance of Reduction Methods

A variable-number PCA approach, which selects principal component axes based on cross-validation assignment rates, outperformed both fixed-number PCA and partial least squares methods [89]. This method produced higher cross-validation assignment rates by optimizing the trade-off between model complexity and generalizability.

Table 2: Dimensionality Reduction Methods for Outline Data

Method	Approach	Advantages	Limitations
Fixed PCA	Retains fixed number of PC axes	Simple implementation; standardized	May include non-informative dimensions
Variable PCA	Selects PC axes based on cross-validation	Optimizes classification rate; reduces overfitting	Computationally intensive; requires optimization
Partial Least Squares	Maximizes covariance with group labels	Directly incorporates group structure	May overfit with small sample sizes

Practical Implementation

Software and Computational Considerations

Practical implementation of these methods requires specialized software, with significant differences in workflow efficiency:

Semi-Landmark Software Comparison

• Morpho (R package): Provides substantially faster processing times compared to Edgewarp, with similar biological interpretation [86] [92]
• Edgewarp: Established reference implementation but with more complex workflow and longer computation times [92]
• Geomorph (R package): Comprehensive toolkit for both 2D and 3D geometric morphometrics [95]

The computational advantage of modern implementations like Morpho becomes particularly important when analyzing large datasets or complex 3D structures [92].

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Tools for Outline-Based Geometric Morphometrics

Tool Category	Specific Examples	Function	Availability
Digitization Software	tpsDig2, ImageJ	Landmark and outline coordinate acquisition	Free
Semi-Landmark Analysis	Morpho, Edgewarp, geomorph	Sliding procedures and shape analysis	Free (R packages)
Fourier Analysis	Momocs (R package), EFAWin	Harmonic analysis of outlines	Free
Statistical Analysis	MorphoJ, R (stats package)	Multivariate statistical analysis	Free
3D Data Acquisition	White light surface scanners, photogrammetry systems	3D model generation for surface analysis	Commercial/Research

Both Fourier analysis and semi-landmark approaches provide powerful, complementary tools for outline-based identification in geometric morphometrics. The choice between methods should be guided by research questions, data structure, and analytical priorities rather than presumed superiority of either approach. For studies requiring integration with traditional landmark data or intuitive visualization of shape differences, semi-landmark methods offer distinct advantages. For analyses of smooth, closed contours where point correspondence is biologically ambiguous, Fourier methods provide a robust alternative. Contemporary research should consider implementing both approaches when feasible, as their complementary strengths provide the most comprehensive characterization of morphological variation for identification research.

Impact of Sample Size and Template Selection on Analysis Stability

Geometric morphometrics (GM) has revolutionized the quantitative analysis of biological form by enabling researchers to statistically compare shapes using Cartesian landmark coordinates [2]. This methodology is foundational for identification research across fields including taxonomy, forensics, and evolutionary biology [96] [97]. However, the stability and reliability of GM analyses are contingent upon two critical methodological considerations: sample size adequacy and appropriate template selection for out-of-sample classification [4] [70]. Sample size directly influences the precision of shape parameter estimates, while template selection determines how effectively classification rules generalize to new specimens not included in the original study sample [70] [98]. This guide objectively evaluates the impact of these factors through comparative experimental data, providing researchers with evidence-based protocols for optimizing geometric morphometric analyses in identification research.

The Impact of Sample Size on Analysis Stability

Sample size is a fundamental determinant of statistical power and estimate precision in geometric morphometrics. Insufficient sampling can introduce substantial error in shape analysis, potentially leading to erroneous biological conclusions [4] [98].

Empirical Evidence of Sample Size Effects

Table 1: Impact of Sample Size Reduction on Shape Parameters in Bat Skull Analysis (adapted from [4])

Original Sample Size	Reduced Sample Size	Effect on Mean Shape	Effect on Shape Variance	Effect on Centroid Size
Lasiurus borealis (n=72)	Progressive reduction	Significant impact	Marked increase	Minimal impact
Nycticeius humeralis (n=81)	Progressive reduction	Significant impact	Marked increase	Minimal impact

Table 2: Sampling Error in Vervet Monkey Skulls (adapted from [98])

Morphometric Parameter	Sensitivity to Sample Size Reduction	Minimum Recommended Sample
Mean size	Low sensitivity	Relatively small samples sufficient
Size standard deviation	Low sensitivity	Relatively small samples sufficient
Shape variance	Low sensitivity	Relatively small samples sufficient
Mean shape	High sensitivity	Larger samples required
Allometric trajectory angles	High sensitivity	Larger samples required

Experimental Protocols for Sample Size Determination

Rarefaction Analysis Methodology ( [98]):

• Begin with an original dataset containing large sample sizes (approximately 400 specimens)
• Perform repeated randomized selection experiments to create progressively smaller subsamples
• Calculate key morphometric parameters (mean shape, shape variance, centroid size) in both original and reduced samples
• Compare estimates between original and subsampled datasets to quantify sampling error
• Determine minimum desirable sample size for each parameter based on acceptable error thresholds

Progressive Sampling Approach ( [4]):

• Leverage large intraspecific sample sizes (n > 70) as reference datasets
• Systematically reduce sample size while monitoring effects on mean shape calculations
• Evaluate how reduced sampling affects shape variance estimates
• Assess stability of centroid size (size measure independent of shape) across sample sizes
• Conduct these evaluations across multiple anatomical views (lateral cranial, ventral cranial, lateral mandibular)

The Challenge of Template Selection in Out-of-Sample Classification

Template selection addresses a fundamental methodological challenge in geometric morphometrics: how to classify new individuals that were not part of the original study sample [70]. This problem arises because standard GM classification rules depend on sample-specific processing steps, particularly Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA), which aligns all specimens simultaneously [70].

Template Selection Experimental Protocol

Out-of-Sample Classification Methodology ( [70]):

• Reference Sample Construction: Collect a training dataset with known group affiliations (e.g., nutritional status, species identity)
• Template Configuration Testing: Evaluate different template configurations from the reference sample as registration targets
• Registration of New Specimens: Align raw coordinates of out-of-sample individuals to the selected template using Procrustes superimposition
• Shape Space Projection: Project the registered coordinates into the shape space of the reference sample
• Classification Rule Application: Apply pre-established discriminant functions to classify the new individual
• Performance Validation: Assess classification accuracy using validation datasets with known group membership

Table 3: Template Selection Strategies for Out-of-Sample Classification

Template Approach	Methodology	Advantages	Limitations
Mean Shape Template	Uses consensus configuration from reference sample	Represents central tendency of population	May smooth extreme morphological features
Model Specimen Template	Selects single representative specimen	Simpler computation	Potential bias from individual variation
Multiple Template Approach	Uses several templates from different groups	Captures population diversity	Increased computational complexity

Integrated Workflow for Stable Geometric Morphometric Analysis

The relationship between sample size, template selection, and analytical stability can be visualized through a comprehensive research workflow that incorporates both considerations at appropriate stages.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Tools for Geometric Morphometric Research

Tool Category	Specific Tools	Function in GM Analysis
Imaging Equipment	Canon EOS 70D with macro lens [4]; LEICA stereomicroscope with digital camera [96]	High-resolution image capture of specimens for landmark digitization
Landmark Digitization Software	tpsDIG2 [4] [96]; tpsUTIL [96]; ImageJ [22]	Precise recording of landmark coordinates from digital images
Morphometric Analysis Platforms	MorphoJ [96] [2]; geomorph R package [4]	Statistical shape analysis including Procrustes superimposition and multivariate statistics
Data Collection Aids	GPM anthropometer [70]; SECA electronic scale [70]	Traditional morphometric measurements for validation and supplementary data
Specimen Preparation	Glycerin slides [96]; Specimen pressing and drying protocols [6]	Standardized specimen preparation for consistent imaging

The stability of geometric morphometric analyses is profoundly influenced by both sample size adequacy and template selection strategies. Empirical evidence demonstrates that parameters like mean shape and allometric trajectories require larger sample sizes for stable estimation, while centroid size remains relatively robust with smaller samples. For classification studies intending to apply findings to new specimens, thoughtful template selection is crucial for ensuring analytical stability and generalizability. By implementing the rarefaction analyses and template evaluation protocols outlined in this guide, researchers can optimize their study designs and enhance the reliability of their geometric morphometric identifications across diverse research applications.

Validation, Reliability, and Comparative Analysis with Other Methods

Geometric morphometrics (GM) has revolutionized the quantitative analysis of biological shape by preserving the complete geometry of structures throughout the statistical analysis [2]. For identification research in taxonomy, forensics, and anthropology, the primary metric of success is classification accuracy—the ability of a morphometric model to correctly assign unknown specimens to their true biological categories. This performance varies significantly based on multiple factors, including the organism studied, anatomical structure analyzed, statistical methods applied, and computational approaches employed [79] [99] [48]. This guide provides a systematic comparison of reported classification accuracies across GM studies, detailing the experimental methodologies that yield these results and the key reagents that enable this research.

Core Principles of Geometric Morphometrics

From Specimen to Shape Data

The foundational principle of GM is the use of landmarks—anatomically recognizable point locations that are biologically homologous across specimens [2]. These landmarks are recorded as two-dimensional or three-dimensional coordinates, capturing the geometry of the structure in a way that traditional linear measurements cannot [48]. The raw coordinates undergo Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA), a superimposition process that standardizes configurations by removing differences in position, orientation, and scale, isolating pure shape information for analysis [1] [2]. The resulting Procrustes coordinates serve as the variables for subsequent statistical analysis and classification.

Analytical Workflow for Identification

The following diagram illustrates the standard workflow for applying geometric morphometrics to identification tasks, from data collection through to performance evaluation:

Reported Classification Accuracies

Classification performance in geometric morphometrics varies substantially across biological systems, analytical methods, and research questions. The table below synthesizes reported accuracies from recent studies:

Table 1: Reported classification accuracies across geometric morphometrics studies

Biological System	Anatomical Structure	Classification Method	Reported Accuracy	Reference
Human (Sex Estimation)	Mandibular Second Premolar	Random Forest	97.95%	[79]
Human (Sex Estimation)	Maxillary First Molar	Random Forest	95.83%	[79]
Human (Sex Estimation)	Multiple Tooth Classes	Support Vector Machine	70-88%	[79]
Human (Sex Estimation)	Multiple Tooth Classes	Artificial Neural Network	58-70%	[79]
Anopheles Mosquitoes	Wings	Support Vector Machine	92.30%	[99]
Anopheles Mosquitoes	Wings	Random Forest	89.70%	[99]
Anopheles Mosquitoes	Wings	Artificial Neural Network	89.20%	[99]
Anopheles Mosquitoes	Wings	Ensemble Model	89.20%	[99]
Anopheles Mosquitoes	Wings	Linear Discriminant Analysis	83.00%	[99]
Mammalian Skulls	Cranium	Geometric Morphometrics	High (post-allometric correction)	[48]

Performance Analysis by Methodological Approach

Machine Learning vs. Traditional Statistics: Contemporary studies demonstrate a clear trend toward machine learning methods outperforming traditional statistical approaches for classification tasks. In mosquito identification, Support Vector Machines achieved 92.3% accuracy, substantially outperforming Linear Discriminant Analysis (83.0%) [99]. Similarly, for human sex estimation from dental morphology, Random Forest classifiers (95.8-97.9%) significantly outperformed both Support Vector Machines (70-88%) and Artificial Neural Networks (58-70%) [79].

Anatomical Structure Specificity: Classification performance shows strong dependence on the anatomical structure analyzed. In dental sex estimation, mandibular second premolars provided the highest accuracy (97.95%), followed closely by maxillary first molars (95.83%) [79]. This suggests that certain morphological structures contain more taxonomically or sexually informative shape variation than others.

Allometric Considerations: The discriminatory power of geometric morphometrics is significantly enhanced when allometry (size-related shape variation) is properly accounted for [48]. Studies on mammalian skulls found that group discrimination based on raw linear measurements often reflected size differences rather than genuine shape variation, whereas GM maintained strong discriminatory performance even after allometric correction [48].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Standardized Geometric Morphometrics Protocol

The following methodology represents the consensus approach across high-performing studies [79] [99]:

1. Sample Preparation and Imaging

• Sample Sizing: Studies reporting high accuracies typically employ sample sizes of 60+ specimens per group [79]. Sample size reduction significantly impacts mean shape estimation and increases shape variance [4].
• Standardized Imaging: Specimens are photographed or scanned using standardized protocols. For 2D GM, cameras are mounted on photostands to maintain consistent angles [4]. For 3D GM, dental casts are digitized using laboratory-grade 3D scanners [79].
• View Selection: Multiple views (lateral, ventral) may be captured for complex structures like skulls, with the understanding that results are view-specific and not always concordant [4].

2. Landmark Digitization

• Landmark Definition: Anatomical landmarks are identified based on homologous features that are reproducible across all specimens. Common types include cusp tips, fissure junctions, and suture intersections [79].
• Semilandmark Application: Curves and surfaces are captured using semilandmarks placed along homologous contours, equally spaced between fixed landmarks [4] [2]. These are subsequently "slid" during GPA to minimize bending energy [4].
• Error Reduction: All landmarking is typically performed by a single researcher to eliminate inter-observer error, with verification by a second researcher [4].

3. Data Preprocessing

• Procrustes Superimposition: Raw landmark coordinates undergo Generalized Procrustes Analysis, which translates, rotates, and scales all configurations to a common coordinate system [2]. This isolates shape variation from other sources of geometric difference.
• Size Calculation: Centroid size (the square root of the sum of squared distances of landmarks from their centroid) is calculated as a size metric independent of shape [2].
• Semilandmark Sliding: Semilandmarks are adjusted to minimize the bending energy between each specimen and the sample mean, establishing homology along curves [4].

4. Classification Analysis

• Feature Extraction: Principal Component Analysis is commonly applied to Procrustes coordinates to reduce dimensionality while preserving shape variation [79] [2].
• Model Training: Multiple algorithms are typically trained on the shape variables, with data partitioned into training and validation sets.
• Performance Validation: Classification accuracy is assessed using k-fold cross-validation (commonly 5-fold) to avoid overoptimism [79].

Machine Learning Integration Protocol

Studies reporting the highest classification accuracies frequently integrate geometric morphometrics with machine learning [79] [99]:

Data Preprocessing for Machine Learning

• Input Features: Procrustes coordinates or principal component scores derived from them serve as input features for machine learning algorithms.
• Data Partitioning: The dataset is divided into training (typically 70-80%) and testing (20-30%) subsets, with stratification to maintain class proportions.
• Normalization: Features are normalized or standardized to ensure comparability across dimensions.

Algorithm Implementation

• Random Forest: An ensemble method constructing multiple decision trees, generally demonstrating the strongest performance in comparative studies [79].
• Support Vector Machines: Constructs hyperplanes in high-dimensional space to maximize separation between classes [79] [99].
• Artificial Neural Networks: Network architectures with input, hidden, and output layers, though performance varies significantly by application [79] [99].
• Ensemble Methods: Combinations of multiple algorithms that may improve robustness over single-method approaches [99].

Performance Metrics

• Primary Metrics: Classification accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and Area Under the Curve (AUC) [79].
• Class Bias Assessment: Evaluation of performance differences in classifying various groups (e.g., male vs. female) [79].
• Comparative Analysis: Statistical comparison of algorithm performance to identify significant differences.

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Materials and Software

Table 2: Essential research reagents and solutions for geometric morphometrics

Category	Item	Specific Function
Data Acquisition	Laboratory 3D Scanner (e.g., inEOS X5)	High-resolution digitization of physical specimens [79]
	Digital SLR Camera with Macro Lens	2D image capture for traditional 2DGM [4]
	Micro-CT/CBCT Scanner	Non-destructive internal structure imaging
Specimen Preparation	Dental Stone (Type 4 Extra Hard)	Creating durable casts for dental studies [79]
	Impression Materials (e.g., Aquasil Soft Putty)	Capturing negative impressions of structures [79]
Software Solutions	tpsDIG2	Landmark digitization on 2D images [4]
	3D Slicer	3D landmark identification and visualization [79]
	MorphoJ	Procrustes superimposition and basic shape analysis [79]
	R (geomorph package)	Comprehensive GM analysis and statistics [4]
Analytical Tools	PAST	Paleontological statistics with GM capabilities
	Thin-Plate Spline Software Suite	Visualization of shape deformations

Classification accuracy in geometric morphometrics is strongly methodology-dependent, with current evidence indicating that machine learning integration—particularly with Random Forest algorithms—delivers superior performance (89.7-97.95% accuracy) compared to traditional statistical approaches [79] [99]. The highest accuracies are achieved through rigorous methodological protocols including adequate sample sizes, comprehensive landmarking schemes, proper allometric correction, and robust cross-validation. Performance remains highly specific to both the biological system and anatomical structure studied, with certain elements (e.g., mandibular premolars in humans) providing exceptional discriminatory power. Researchers should select methodologies based on their specific identification tasks while recognizing that consistent protocols and appropriate analytical choices significantly impact the reliability of morphometric classification.

Morphometrics, the quantitative analysis of biological form, is fundamental to research in taxonomy, evolutionary biology, and development [100]. For decades, classical morphometrics was the standard approach, relying on linear distances, angles, and ratios. The advent of geometric morphometrics (GM) has provided a powerful alternative that preserves the geometric relationships among data points throughout analysis [100] [101]. This guide provides an objective, data-driven comparison of these two methodologies, evaluating their performance for species identification and morphological research. We focus on practical applications, summarizing experimental data and detailing protocols to help researchers select the appropriate tool for their specific research questions.

Classical Morphometrics

Classical morphometrics involves the statistical analysis of linear measurements, masses, angles, and ratios derived from biological structures [100]. These measurements represent size attributes, but a key limitation is that many are highly correlated, providing relatively few independent variables despite numerous measurements [100]. This approach is deeply rooted in traditional taxonomy; for instance, Ruttner's system for honey bee identification uses features like wing angles, hair length, and wax plate dimensions [102].

Geometric Morphometrics

Geometric morphometrics captures the spatial arrangement of morphology by analyzing the coordinates of anatomically homologous points, known as landmarks [100] [103]. The core principle of GM is that "shape" is defined as all the geometric information that remains after removing the effects of location, scale, and rotation [100]. The standard protocol involves:

• Digitizing landmarks on biological structures using imaging software.
• Procrustes superimposition to align specimens by removing non-shape information.
• Statistical analysis of the aligned coordinates in tangent space [100] [26].

Table: Core Concepts of the Two Morphometric Approaches

Feature	Classical Morphometrics	Geometric Morphometrics
Data Type	Linear distances, angles, ratios, masses [100]	Cartesian coordinates of landmarks and semilandmarks [100] [103]
Primary Focus	Size and size-correlated shape variation [100]	Pure shape and allometric relationships [100]
Spatial Information	Limited; relative positions of structures are lost [100]	Preserved throughout the analysis via landmark configurations [100]
Visualization of Results	Charts and graphs of measured variables	Deformation grids (thin-plate splines), vector diagrams, morphospace plots [100] [26]

Performance Evaluation: Key Comparative Studies

Case Study 1: Discriminating Honey Bee Subspecies

A direct comparative study on South African honey bees provides robust, quantitative performance data [102].

• Objective: To discriminate between Apis mellifera scutellata and A. m. capensis.
• Experimental Protocol:
  • Classical Method: Ten standard morphometric features were measured, including tergite hair length, wax plate dimensions, pigmentation scores, wing angles, forewing length, and ovariole number [102].
  • GM Method: Landmarks were digitized at wing vein intersections on both forewings and hindwings. The coordinates were subjected to Procrustes superimposition [102].
  • Analysis: Both datasets were analyzed using Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) and Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis [102].
• Results and Performance Data:

Table: Performance Metrics for Honey Bee Subspecies Identification [102]

Method	Key Discriminatory Features	Classification Accuracy
Classical Morphometrics	Tergite color, average ovariole number [102]	97% [102]
Geometric Morphometrics	Wing vein configuration (both forewings and hindwings) [102]	73.7% [102]

• Conclusion: For this specific application, the classical method was significantly more accurate. The study concluded that while GM is faster and easier to collect, the classical approach provided superior discriminatory power for these closely related subspecies [102].

Case Study 2: Thrips Identification for Quarantine Security

Research on thrips of the genus Thrips demonstrates a complementary application of GM where it provides unique advantages [26].

• Objective: To distinguish between quarantine-significant and common thrips species, which are challenging to identify using traditional morphology [26].
• Experimental Protocol:
  • High-resolution images of slide-mounted thrips were used.
  • Eleven landmarks on the head and ten on the thorax (around setal insertion points) were digitized using TPS Dig2 software.
  • Landmark coordinates were Procrustes-superimposed in MorphoJ software.
  • Shape variation was analyzed via Principal Component Analysis (PCA), and differences were tested using Procrustes and Mahalanobis distances with permutation tests [26].
• Results and Performance:
  • The analysis revealed statistically significant differences in head and thorax shape among species [26].
  • PCA successfully visualized species distribution in morphospace, identifying T. australis and T. angusticeps as the most distinct in head shape [26].
  • This GM approach proved valuable for identifying morphologically conservative taxa and species complexes [26].
• Conclusion: GM served as a powerful complementary tool to traditional taxonomy, quantifying subtle morphological differences that are difficult to discern visually, which is critical for border protection and biosecurity [26].

Comparative Workflows

The following diagram illustrates the fundamental procedural differences between the two methods, from data collection to final output.

Table: Key Materials and Software for Morphometric Research

Tool / Resource	Function	Example Applications
TPS Dig2 [26]	Software for digitizing landmarks from 2D images.	Widely used for placing landmarks on insect wings [26] and leaf outlines [103].
MorphoJ [26] [103]	Integrated software for performing Procrustes superimposition, PCA, and other statistical shape analyses.	Used in thrips [26] and plant leaf [103] studies for statistical analysis and visualization.
geomorph R package [26] [103]	An R package for GM analysis, offering a wide range of statistical tools and high customizability.	Employed in the thrips study for advanced statistical testing [26].
Micro-computed tomography (µCT) [104]	Technology for non-destructively obtaining high-resolution 3D internal and external morphology data.	Used in large-scale phenotyping projects like the MusMorph mouse database [104].
MorphoLeaf [103]	A specialized plugin for leaf contour extraction, landmark identification, and shape analysis.	Applied to quantify trait diversity in Cucurbitaceae leaves [103].

Synergies and Best Practices

Rather than being mutually exclusive, classical and geometric morphometrics are often most powerful when used together [26] [102]. The choice of method should be guided by the research question:

• Choose Classical Morphometrics when the research question directly concerns absolute size, growth, or when working with historically defined traits that are proven to have high discriminatory power, as in the honey bee study [102].
• Choose Geometric Morphometrics when the research focuses on overall shape differences, requires visualization of shape change, or when studying structures lacking easily measurable homologous points but with clear outlines [100] [103].

Final Verdict

This head-to-head comparison reveals that neither method is universally superior. Classical morphometrics can offer high accuracy for well-established taxonomic problems and direct measurement of size. In contrast, geometric morphometrics provides a more comprehensive and visually intuitive analysis of shape, proving particularly valuable for studying complex forms, cryptic species, and generating new morphological hypotheses [100] [26]. Researchers are encouraged to consider their specific objectives, the nature of their specimens, and the type of information required to make an informed choice between these two powerful analytical paradigms.

This guide provides an objective performance comparison of modern computer vision and deep learning technologies, framed within a broader thesis on performance evaluation of geometric morphometrics for identification research. It synthesizes current industry benchmarks and experimental data to inform researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals.

Geometric morphometrics (GM) has emerged as a powerful quantitative framework for identification research across biological, forensic, and clinical domains. This methodology uses landmark-based coordinate data to statistically analyze shape variation, providing a rigorous alternative to traditional qualitative morphological assessments [81]. Concurrently, advances in computer vision and deep learning have created unprecedented opportunities to automate and enhance morphometric analyses. The integration of these technologies enables researchers to tackle complex identification challenges with greater speed, accuracy, and objectivity.

The synergy between these fields is particularly evident in applications requiring precise morphological discrimination. For instance, researchers have successfully employed GM to distinguish between invasive and native insect species based on wing venation patterns [81], classify fossil shark teeth for taxonomic identification [72], and estimate biological sex from 3D dental landmarks [35]. These applications share common requirements with computer vision systems: robust feature detection, accurate classification, and statistically validated performance metrics.

This comparison guide evaluates the benchmarking frameworks, performance metrics, and experimental protocols that bridge computer vision and geometric morphometrics, providing researchers with a comprehensive toolkit for objective technology assessment in identification research.

Key Benchmarking Metrics for Computer Vision and Identification Research

Performance evaluation in both computer vision and geometric morphometrics relies on well-established quantitative metrics that assess different aspects of model capability. Understanding these metrics is essential for meaningful technology comparisons and for selecting appropriate evaluation criteria based on specific research objectives.

Core Object Detection Metrics

Computer vision object detection shares conceptual parallels with landmark identification in morphometrics. Both processes involve locating and classifying features of interest within complex data structures. The most widely adopted metrics for evaluating these capabilities include:

• Intersection over Union (IoU): Measures the overlap between predicted and ground truth bounding boxes or regions of interest. IoU provides a fundamental measure of localization accuracy, with values ranging from 0 (no overlap) to 1 (perfect overlap) [105].
• Precision and Recall: Precision measures the accuracy of positive predictions (the proportion of correctly identified landmarks or objects among all detections), while recall measures completeness (the proportion of actual landmarks or objects that were successfully detected) [105].
• Average Precision (AP): Integrates precision-recall trade-offs into a single numerical summary by calculating the area under the precision-recall curve. AP is typically calculated separately for each object class or category [105].
• Mean Average Precision (mAP): Extends AP to multi-class scenarios by averaging precision values across all classes. mAP has become the gold standard metric for comprehensive object detection evaluation in computer vision [105].
• F1-Score: Represents the harmonic mean of precision and recall, providing a balanced metric especially valuable for imbalanced datasets where either false positives or false negatives carry significant costs [105].

Table 1: Core Performance Metrics for Computer Vision and Morphometric Analysis

Metric	Primary Function	Interpretation	Relevance to Morphometrics
IoU	Measures localization accuracy	0-1 scale; higher values indicate better spatial alignment	Assesses precision of landmark placement
Precision	Measures prediction quality	Proportion of correct positive identifications	Evaluates specificity in feature detection
Recall	Measures prediction completeness	Proportion of actual positives correctly identified	Evaluates sensitivity in feature detection
mAP	Overall multi-class detection quality	0-1 scale; higher values indicate better overall performance	Comprehensive shape classification accuracy
F1-Score	Balances precision and recall	Harmonic mean of precision and recall	Optimal for balanced error minimization

Domain-Specific Performance Metrics in Geometric Morphometrics

While computer vision provides general evaluation frameworks, geometric morphometrics employs specialized metrics tailored to shape analysis:

• Procrustes Distance: Quantifies the difference between shapes after accounting for position, scale, and rotation effects. This metric forms the foundation of statistical shape analysis [35] [4].
• Centroid Size: A measure of size calculated as the square root of the sum of squared distances of all landmarks from their centroid. Unlike traditional measurements, centroid size is mathematically independent of shape in geometric morphometrics [4].
• Shape Variance: Measures the dispersion of specimens in shape space, typically calculated as the trace of the covariance matrix of Procrustes coordinates [4].
• Classification Accuracy: In applied identification research, the ultimate metric is often the correct classification rate when discriminating between groups (e.g., species, sexes, or treatment conditions) [81] [35].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Robust benchmarking requires standardized experimental protocols that ensure reproducible and comparable results across studies and technologies. This section outlines key methodological approaches for both computer vision and geometric morphometrics applications.

Geometric Morphometrics Workflow for Identification Research

The standard GM workflow transforms raw morphological data into quantitative shape variables suitable for statistical analysis and model training. The diagram below illustrates this multi-stage process:

This workflow underpins various identification applications. In taxonomic discrimination of Chrysodeixis moths, researchers implemented a specific protocol using seven venation landmarks on right forewings photographed under digital microscopy. Landmarks were digitized using specialized software (TPSdig or MorphoJ), followed by Procrustes fitting and discriminant analysis for species classification [81]. This approach successfully distinguished invasive C. chalcites from native C. includens, demonstrating GM's utility in pest surveillance programs.

For 3D applications such as skeletal trauma analysis or dental morphology, the protocol extends to three-dimensional data acquisition. In weapon identification from skeletal sharp force trauma, researchers created experimental cut marks in modeling clay and porcine skeletal material using various weapons. The resulting marks were imaged using structured light scanning and photogrammetry to create 3D models for landmark-based GM analysis [106]. This approach achieved 85% overall correct classification for weapon type, with some individual weapons reaching 100% classification accuracy.

Computer Vision Model Evaluation Protocol

The standard protocol for evaluating object detection models in computer vision involves multiple stages of quantitative assessment, with particular emphasis on the relationship between model confidence thresholds and performance metrics:

Best practices recommend using different strategies for validation and test datasets. For validation datasets during model development, researchers should use mAP to identify the most stable and consistent model across iterations and examine class-level AP values to ensure balanced performance across different morphological classes [105]. For final test dataset evaluation, the optimal metric depends on application requirements: F1-score for balanced consideration of false positives and negatives, prioritized precision when false positives are unacceptable, and prioritized recall when false negatives are unacceptable [105].

Performance Benchmarks: Comparative Data

Deep Learning Framework Performance

Industry-standard benchmarks provide crucial performance data for comparing deep learning frameworks. MLPerf, recognized as the "gold standard" for AI benchmarking, has demonstrated that continuous optimization can deliver substantial performance gains, with some systems achieving 4x performance improvements in just 18 months [107].

Table 2: Deep Learning Framework Performance Comparison

Framework	Training Speed	Memory Usage	Inference Speed	Accuracy	Best Use Cases
PyTorch	Faster (7.67s avg)	Higher (3.5GB)	Moderate	High (~78%)	Research, rapid prototyping
TensorFlow	Moderate (11.19s avg)	Lower (1.7GB)	High	High (~78%)	Production deployment
DeepSeek	Fast (optimized)	Low (efficient)	High (optimized)	High (optimized)	NLP, computer vision
JAX	Variable	Variable	High	High	Scientific computing

These benchmarks reveal important trade-offs. While PyTorch demonstrated faster average training times (7.67s vs. 11.19s for TensorFlow in specific benchmarks), TensorFlow showed significantly lower memory usage during training (1.7GB vs. 3.5GB) [107]. Both frameworks can achieve similar final accuracy (approximately 78% for the same model after 20 epochs), highlighting that framework choice often involves balancing development flexibility against production efficiency requirements [107].

AI Model Performance in Geometric Morphometrics Applications

Recent research demonstrates the successful integration of AI with geometric morphometrics across various identification domains. The table below summarizes performance benchmarks from contemporary studies:

Table 3: Performance Benchmarks in Geometric Morphometrics Applications

Application Domain	Methodology	Classification Accuracy	Key Metrics	Reference
Insect Species ID	Wing GM (7 landmarks)	High discrimination	Successful validation	[81]
Weapon ID (Forensic)	3D GM of cut marks	85% overall (100% for some weapons)	Cross-validated DFA	[106]
Fossil Shark Tooth ID	GM vs. Traditional	Taxonomic separation	Additional shape variables captured	[72]
Sex Estimation (Dental)	3D GM + Random Forest	97.95% (mandibular premolars)	Accuracy, F1-score	[35]
Sex Estimation (Dental)	3D GM + SVM	70-88% accuracy	Fivefold cross-validation	[35]
Sex Estimation (Dental)	3D GM + ANN	58-70% accuracy	Lowest performance metrics	[35]

These results highlight several important trends. First, traditional machine learning models like Random Forest can outperform more complex deep learning approaches (ANN) on structured morphometric data, with Random Forest achieving 97.95% accuracy for sex estimation from mandibular second premolars compared to ANN's 58-70% accuracy range [35]. Second, GM consistently provides valuable discriminatory power across diverse domains, from forensic weapon identification to taxonomic classification of fossils [106] [72].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Successful implementation of computer vision and geometric morphometrics requires specific software tools, hardware platforms, and methodological components. The following table details essential solutions for researchers in this field:

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions for Computer Vision and Geometric Morphometrics

Tool/Category	Specific Examples	Primary Function	Application Context
Morphometrics Software	MorphoJ, TPS series (tpsDig, tpsRelw), PAST	Landmark digitization, Procrustes analysis, statistical shape analysis	Core GM workflow implementation
3D Analysis Tools	3D Slicer, geomorph R package	3D landmark placement and analysis	Complex 3D morphological studies
Deep Learning Frameworks	PyTorch, TensorFlow, JAX	Model development, training, inference	Computer vision pipeline development
Evaluation Frameworks	COCO Evaluation API, TensorFlow OD API	Standardized metric calculation	Performance benchmarking
Imaging Hardware	Structured light scanners, photogrammetry setups, digital microscopes	3D data acquisition	Specimen digitization
AI-Assisted Annotation	Label Your Data, Roboflow	Ground truth preparation	Training data preparation
Specialized Statistical Packages	R (geomorph v.4.0.5), Python (scikit-learn)	Advanced statistical analysis	Multivariate shape analysis

This toolkit enables the complete research pipeline from data acquisition to final analysis. For example, in a comprehensive study of bat skull morphology, researchers used Canon EOS 70D cameras with macro lenses for data acquisition, tpsDIG2 for landmark digitization, and the geomorph package in R for Procrustes analysis and statistical evaluation [4]. Similarly, dental morphometrics research has leveraged 3D Slicer for landmark placement followed by analysis in MorphoJ [35].

Based on comprehensive benchmarking data, researchers can optimize their technology selection through several evidence-based guidelines. First, framework choice should align with project phase: PyTorch excels in research prototyping with its flexible dynamic graphs, while TensorFlow often delivers superior production performance with lower memory requirements [107]. Second, metric selection must reflect application priorities: mAP provides comprehensive multi-class evaluation, while F1-score offers balanced performance assessment for imbalanced datasets [105].

The integration of traditional machine learning with geometric morphometrics demonstrates that sophisticated deep learning approaches are not universally superior. For structured morphometric data, Random Forest achieved exceptional performance (97.95% accuracy) in dental sex estimation, significantly outperforming neural networks [35]. This suggests researchers should consider problem-specific benchmarking rather than defaulting to the most complex available models.

Finally, sample size and study design significantly impact morphological analyses. Research shows that reduced sample sizes can substantially affect mean shape calculations and increase shape variance estimates [4]. Researchers should therefore conduct power analyses and implement appropriate sample sizes during study design rather than being constrained by specimen availability alone.

As geometric morphometrics and computer vision continue to converge, researchers who strategically leverage these benchmarking frameworks and implementation guidelines will be best positioned to advance identification research across biological, forensic, and clinical domains.

Geometric morphometrics (GM) has emerged as a powerful quantitative tool for taxonomic identification across biological research domains, enabling precise analysis of shape variation using landmark-based coordinates. This approach represents a significant advancement over traditional qualitative morphological assessment by applying statistical rigor to shape comparison. In taxonomic and identification research, GM facilitates the detection of subtle morphological differences that are often challenging to recognize through visual inspection alone [72]. The methodology has been successfully applied to diverse research areas including entomology, paleontology, and pharmaceutical development, demonstrating its versatility as a classification tool.

The fundamental principle underlying GM classification involves capturing the geometry of morphological structures through carefully selected landmarks, then subjecting these coordinate data to multivariate statistical analysis. This process allows researchers to quantify shape differences between species, populations, or treatment groups with mathematical precision. When effective, GM can distinguish between closely related species with similar external morphologies, providing a valuable tool for situations where traditional identification methods prove insufficient [81]. However, despite its demonstrated utility in controlled studies, the application of GM classification faces significant limitations that can compromise its reliability in real-world research scenarios, particularly when critical methodological requirements are not met.

Systematic Analysis of GM Classification Limitations

Landmark Selection and Homology Challenges

The foundation of reliable geometric morphometrics analysis rests upon appropriate landmark selection, yet this fundamental requirement presents one of the most significant limitations in GM classification. Landmarks must be biologically homologous across all specimens to ensure valid statistical comparisons, but identifying truly homologous points can be challenging, especially when analyzing structures with high morphological variability or incomplete preservation.

Table 1: Limitations in Landmark Selection and Their Impacts

Limitation Type	Impact on GM Classification	Research Context
Limited Homologous Landmarks	Reduces captured morphological information; limits statistical power	Fossil shark teeth study excluded incomplete specimens [72]
Landmark Positioning Variability	Introduces measurement error; compromises reproducibility	Chrysodeixis moth study used only 7 landmarks on wing center [81]
Insufficient Landmark Coverage	Fails to capture complete shape geometry; overlooks diagnostic features	Semilandmarks used on shark tooth roots where homologs absent [72]
Operator Dependency	Reduces inter-study reliability; introduces systematic bias	Requires expertise in landmark identification and placement

The Chrysodeixis moth study exemplifies this constraint, where researchers addressed the challenges of trap-collected lepidopteran pests by utilizing "a limited number of landmarks on the center of the wing" [81]. This approach, while practical for damaged specimens, inevitably sacrifices comprehensive shape representation for methodological feasibility. Similarly, research on fossil shark teeth encountered preservation limitations that necessitated the exclusion of "incomplete specimens from the original sample" because "missing data would prevent reliable statistical comparisons" [72]. These examples demonstrate how practical constraints directly impact landmark selection and consequently limit the morphological information available for classification.

Specimen Preservation and Data Quality Issues

The integrity of physical specimens directly governs the reliability of GM classification, with sample preservation representing a critical limitation in both contemporary and paleontological research. Specimen damage during collection, preservation artifacts, or natural degradation can compromise landmark visibility and positioning, introducing systematic errors that propagate through subsequent statistical analyses.

In the Chrysodeixis moth identification research, investigators explicitly acknowledged that only "specimens with well-preserved right forewings were collected from the traps for analysis" [81]. This screening criterion, while methodologically necessary, introduces selection bias by excluding damaged specimens that might represent important morphological variation within populations. The practical implication is that GM classification systems may demonstrate reduced accuracy when applied to field-collected specimens with varying preservation states, limiting their utility in large-scale survey programs where specimen quality varies considerably.

The fossil shark tooth study confronted even more severe preservation limitations, with researchers noting that "incomplete specimens from the original sample were excluded, as missing data would prevent reliable statistical comparisons" [72]. This exclusion reduced their analytical sample from 172 to 120 specimens, representing a 30% reduction in statistical power due to preservation constraints. For rare taxonomic groups or limited sample sizes, such exclusions can fundamentally undermine classification reliability by reducing sample diversity and representation.

Methodological and Analytical Constraints

Geometric morphometrics faces inherent methodological limitations that can lead to classification failure when analytical assumptions are violated or when compared with alternative identification approaches. Both the Chrysodeixis moth and fossil shark tooth studies demonstrated that GM effectiveness is context-dependent, with specific analytical constraints influencing classification outcomes.

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of GM Classification Limitations Across Research Contexts

Research Context	GM Performance	Key Limitations	Alternative Methods
Chrysodeixis Moth Identification	Effective for distinguishing C. chalcites from C. includens	Limited landmarks; cross-attracted native plusiines complicate analysis	Male genitalia dissection; DNA analysis [81]
Fossil Shark Tooth Taxonomy	Recovers taxonomic separation; captures additional shape variables	Requires complete specimens; homologous landmark constraints	Traditional morphometrics; qualitative assessment [72]
Pharmaceuticals GMP Classification	Not directly applicable	Deficiency classification relies on risk assessment, not shape analysis	Critical/Major/Other deficiency categorization [108]

The fossil shark tooth research provided particularly insightful evidence of methodological limitations when directly comparing GM with traditional morphometric approaches. While GM "recovers the same taxonomic separation identified by traditional morphometrics," it also "captures additional shape variables that traditional methods did not consider" [72]. This suggests that GM potentially offers more comprehensive morphological characterization, but not necessarily superior classification performance. Additionally, the requirement for complete specimens for GM analysis represents a significant constraint compared to traditional morphometrics, which can sometimes accommodate incomplete specimens through proportional measurements.

The Chrysodeixis study further highlighted analytical constraints by noting that GM served to "streamline the screening process of large numbers of cross-attracted native plusiines" but did not replace definitive identification through "male genitalia dissection and DNA analysis" [81]. This demonstrates that GM classification often functions best as a screening tool rather than a definitive identification method, particularly when distinguishing morphologically similar taxa.

Figure 1: Logical Pathway of GM Classification Failure. This diagram illustrates the sequential relationship between major limitation categories that contribute to classification failure in geometric morphometrics.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Standardized GM Workflow for Taxonomic Identification

The experimental protocols employed in GM classification studies follow a consistent workflow designed to maximize reproducibility and analytical rigor. Based on the methodologies described in both the Chrysodeixis moth and fossil shark tooth research, a standardized approach emerges that can be adapted across biological research contexts.

The initial specimen preparation phase requires careful cleaning and positioning of specimens to ensure consistent imaging. In the Chrysodeixis study, researchers documented that "the cleaned wings of specimens with validated identification were photographed under a digital microscope" [81], emphasizing the importance of specimen preparation before image capture. This step is particularly crucial for delicate structures like insect wings or small morphological features where orientation affects landmark positioning.

For landmark digitization, the fossil shark tooth study employed "a total of seven homologous landmarks and eight semilandmarks" using specialized software (TPSdig 2.32) [72]. The protocol explicitly addressed the challenge of non-homologous contours by placing "eight equidistant semilandmarks along the curved profile of the ventral margin of the tooth root where no homologous points can be detected" [72]. This approach demonstrates how mixed landmark-semilandmark protocols can enhance shape representation while maintaining biological homology.

Statistical analysis typically employs specialized GM software such as MorphoJ [81], which performs Procrustes superposition to remove the effects of size, position, and orientation, followed by multivariate statistical analysis including principal component analysis (PCA), discriminant function analysis (DFA), or canonical variates analysis (CVA). These analytical steps transform landmark coordinates into shape variables suitable for taxonomic classification and hypothesis testing.

Validation Methodologies for GM Classification

Robust validation of GM classification requires integration with independent identification methods to assess accuracy and reliability. Both examined studies employed rigorous validation protocols that highlight the importance of corroborating GM results with established taxonomic methods.

In the Chrysodeixis research, species identification of reference specimens "were performed based on male genitalia dissection" prior to GM analysis [81]. This destructive but taxonomically definitive method provided the ground truth against which GM classification accuracy could be assessed. For field-collected specimens, the researchers used "real-time PCR testing for C. includens following the assay described in Zink et al." [81], demonstrating how molecular methods can provide validation for large sample sizes where morphological dissection is impractical.

The fossil shark tooth study employed a different validation approach, using "teeth of extant taxa as control taxa for a better comparison between the four genera" [72]. This methodology allowed researchers to establish known morphological variation within extant species as a baseline for interpreting fossil morphological diversity. Additionally, the study compared GM results with traditional morphometric analyses conducted on the same specimen set, providing direct methodological comparison rather than absolute taxonomic validation.

Figure 2: Standardized GM Experimental Workflow. This diagram outlines the key methodological stages in geometric morphometrics classification studies, from specimen preparation to analytical validation.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful implementation of GM classification requires specific laboratory resources and analytical tools. The following table summarizes essential research reagents and materials identified across the examined studies, with particular emphasis on their functions within the GM workflow.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for GM Classification Studies

Research Resource	Function in GM Classification	Specific Examples
Digital Microscopy Systems	High-resolution imaging of morphological structures	Digital microscope for Chrysodeixis wing photography [81]
Landmark Digitization Software	Precise coordinate capture from digital images	TPSdig 2.32 for fossil shark tooth landmarks [72]
GM Statistical Packages	Multivariate shape analysis and visualization	MorphoJ for coordinate analysis [81]
Reference Collections	Validation of taxonomic identifications	APHIS-provided specimens with genitalia-based ID [81]
Molecular Biology Reagents	Independent taxonomic validation	Real-time PCR testing for C. includens [81]
Specimen Preservation Materials	Maintain morphological integrity before imaging	Individual storage cups for reared Lepidoptera [81]

The resources highlighted in this toolkit represent the minimum requirements for implementing GM classification protocols. The digital microscopy systems enable capture of high-resolution images necessary for precise landmark placement, while specialized software facilitates both landmark digitization (TPSdig) and statistical analysis (MorphoJ). Perhaps most critically, the reference collections and molecular biology reagents provide essential validation capabilities that transform GM from a purely morphological technique into a taxonomically robust identification method.

Geometric morphometrics represents a valuable but context-dependent tool for biological classification, with specific limitations that researchers must acknowledge when designing identification protocols. The evidence from contemporary entomology and paleontological studies demonstrates that GM classification fails when specimen preservation compromises landmark integrity, when morphological structures lack sufficient homologous points, and when analytical assumptions violate biological reality. Rather than functioning as a standalone identification method, GM appears most effective when integrated within a multidisciplinary framework that includes molecular validation and traditional morphological expertise.

For researchers implementing GM classification systems, methodological transparency becomes paramount. Clearly documenting landmark selection criteria, specimen preservation states, and analytical parameters enables proper interpretation of classification reliability. Furthermore, understanding the specific contexts in which GM approaches face limitations—such as distinguishing morphologically cryptic species or analyzing fragmentary fossil material—guides appropriate methodological selection in taxonomic research. As geometric morphometrics continues to evolve, acknowledging these constraints represents the foundation for methodological refinement and appropriate application across biological research domains.

In the field of geometric morphometrics (GM), the accurate identification and classification of biological specimens rely on robust statistical validation methods. As a performance evaluation tool for identification research, GM leverages the powerful combination of Procrustes ANOVA, Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA), and cross-validation techniques to quantify and validate shape differences across groups. These statistical frameworks provide researchers with validated methodologies for distinguishing between species, populations, or treatment groups based on subtle morphological variations that often escape traditional measurement approaches. This guide objectively compares the performance of these statistical techniques within applied research contexts, supported by experimental data from published studies.

Performance Comparison of Statistical Techniques

The table below summarizes quantitative performance data for Procrustes ANOVA, MANOVA, and cross-validation techniques across various geometric morphometrics applications:

Table 1: Performance Metrics of Statistical Techniques in Geometric Morphometrics Studies

Application Context	Statistical Technique	Key Performance Metrics	Reference
Cryptic mosquito species identification	Wing geometric morphometrics with cross-validation	74.29% total performance for wing shape analysis vs. 56.43% for wing size analysis	[109]
Malocclusion classification in Malaysian population	Procrustes ANOVA	Shape effect highly significant (P<0.01)	[110]
Malocclusion classification in Malaysian population	Discriminant Function Analysis with cross-validation	80% discrimination accuracy after cross-validation	[110]
Age-related feather shape discrimination	Canonical Variates Analysis with cross-validation	Classification optimized using variable number of PC axes	[111]
Ancestry determination using cranial morphology	Discriminant Function Analysis with leave-one-out cross-validation	Shape and form variables more accurate than size alone for classification	[112]

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Wing Geometric Morphometrics for Species Discrimination

This protocol follows the methodology used to discriminate among cryptic species of the Anopheles barbirostris complex in Thailand [109]:

• Sample Preparation and Imaging: Clean and prepare wings for digital imaging under standardized conditions. For lepidopteran species, this may involve addressing challenges specific to trap-collected specimens [113].

• Landmark Digitization: Annotate specific coordinate points on wing images. The study on Chrysodeixis spp. used seven venation landmarks annotated from digital images [113].

• Data Processing: Perform Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA) to eliminate non-shape variations through translation, rescaling, and rotation of landmark configurations. This process adjusts coordinates such that each specimen has a unit centroid size [110].

• Statistical Analysis:

  • Apply both wing size (centroid size) and wing shape (Procrustes coordinates) analyses
  • Perform Procrustes ANOVA to assess shape significance
  • Conduct discriminant analysis with cross-validation

• Validation: Use cross-validated reclassification to assess identification performance, comparing the efficacy of different shape variables [109].

Protocol 2: Craniofacial Morphometrics for Malocclusion Classification

This protocol is adapted from the geometric morphometric analysis of malocclusion on lateral cephalograms in a Malaysian population [110]:

• Data Collection: Retrieve lateral cephalogram radiographs with appropriate ethical approval. The Malaysian study included 381 adults across three malocclusion classes [110].

• Landmark Configuration: Define and apply a standardized set of landmarks. The malocclusion study used nine landmarks corresponding to those commonly used in traditional cephalometric analysis [110].

• Generalized Procrustes Analysis: Perform GPA to superimpose landmark configurations by translating, rescaling, and rotating to minimize the total sum of squares, producing a new matrix of Procrustes coordinates [110].

• Principal Component Analysis (PCA): Conduct PCA to explore relationships between samples and reduce dimensionality. The malocclusion study yielded 14 principal components responsible for 100% of shape variation [110].

• Procrustes ANOVA: Perform Procrustes ANOVA to determine if shape differences are statistically significant, assessing variation among individuals and measurement error [110].

• Discriminant Function Analysis with Cross-Validation: Use discriminant function analysis with cross-validation to assess classification accuracy, applying it to PC scores from the GPA/PCA [110].

Workflow Visualization

Figure 1: Geometric morphometrics statistical validation workflow, showing the integration of Procrustes ANOVA, MANOVA, and cross-validation techniques.

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Research Tools for Geometric Morphometrics Statistical Analysis

Tool/Solution	Function	Application Example
MorphoJ software	Comprehensive software package for geometric morphometric analysis	Used for discriminant function analysis with cross-validation in malocclusion classification [110]
tpsUtil software	File utility program for landmark data management	Employed for landmark application in craniofacial shape analysis [110]
R package 'geomorph'	Statistical analysis of shape in R	Contains procD.lm function for Procrustes ANOVA [114]
Planmeca Romexis software	Medical imaging software for radiographic analysis	Used to retrieve lateral cephalograms in dental research [110]
Cross-validation algorithms	Method for assessing classification accuracy	Applied in discriminant analyses to prevent overfitting [111] [110]

Technical Implementation

Procrustes ANOVA Implementation

Procrustes ANOVA employs permutation procedures to assess statistical hypotheses describing patterns of shape variation and covariation for a set of Procrustes shape variables [114]. The implementation in R's geomorph package uses the procD.lm function with the following key parameters:

• Formula specification: Linear model formula (e.g., y~x1+x2)
• Iterations: Number of permutations for significance testing (typically 999+)
• SS.type: Type of sums of squares (I, II, or III)
• Effect.type: Method for effect size estimation (F, SS, or cohenf) [114]

This method quantifies the relative amount of shape variation attributable to one or more factors in a linear model and estimates the probability of this variation through distributions generated from resampling permutations [114].

MANOVA in Geometric Morphometrics

MANOVA extends ANOVA by assessing multiple dependent variables simultaneously, testing whether there are treatment effects on a combination of outcome variables in a way that maximizes treatment group differences [115] [116]. In geometric morphometrics, MANOVA offers several advantages:

• Enhanced detection power: Can identify effects that ANOVA misses when dependent variables are correlated [116]
• Pattern recognition: Assesses relationships between multiple shape variables simultaneously
• Error rate control: Limits joint error rate compared to multiple ANOVA tests [115] [116]

MANOVA works best when dependent variables are negatively correlated or modestly correlated, and is particularly effective when analyzing multiple shape variables that might show complementary patterns of variation [115].

Cross-Validation Techniques

Cross-validation in geometric morphometrics addresses the challenge of overfitting, particularly when using many variables relative to sample size. The optimal approach selects the number of principal component axes that maximize cross-validation classification rates, providing a more realistic estimate of model performance than resubstitution methods [111].

The leave-one-out cross-validation method has proven particularly effective in geometric morphometric applications, providing reliable estimates of classification accuracy while making efficient use of limited sample sizes [110] [112].

The integration of Procrustes ANOVA, MANOVA, and cross-validation techniques provides a robust statistical framework for validation of geometric morphometric identification research. Each method offers complementary strengths: Procrustes ANOVA tests shape significance, MANOVA detects multivariate patterns, and cross-validation ensures reliable classification performance. The experimental data presented demonstrates that these methods consistently achieve classification accuracy exceeding 74% in species discrimination and 80% in medical applications when properly implemented with appropriate validation protocols.

Conclusion

The performance evaluation of geometric morphometrics confirms its substantial value as a robust and versatile method for identification and classification across biomedical research. Its strength lies in the ability to quantitatively capture complex 3D shape variations, enabling applications from personalized drug delivery to forensic age estimation and nutritional assessment. However, its performance is not universal; key considerations such as the challenge of out-of-sample classification, the critical need for appropriate dimensionality reduction, and the choice of methodology significantly influence outcomes. While GM often matches or surpasses classical morphometrics, emerging methods like computer vision can outperform it in specific 2D classification tasks. Future directions should focus on standardizing protocols for out-of-sample analysis, integrating 3D GM with deep learning for enhanced power, and expanding its role in clinical settings and structure-based drug design, ultimately solidifying its place in the toolkit of modern biomedical science.

References

• 1. Thirty years of geometric morphometrics: Achievements, challenges, and the ongoing quest for biological meaningfulness - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9545184/]
• 2. in anthropology - Wikipedia Geometric morphometrics [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_morphometrics_in_anthropology]
• 3. The exchangeability of shape - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2987866/]
• 4. Sample Size and Geometric Morphometrics Methodology Impact the Evaluation of Morphological Variation - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10833145/]
• 5. Visualizations in geometric morphometrics: how to read and how to make graphs showing shape changes [http://www.italian-journal-of-mammalogy.it/Visualizations-in-geometric-morphometrics-how-to-read-and-how-to-make-graphs-showing,77239,0,2.html]
• 6. Leaf Morphology, Taxonomy and Geometric ... Morphometrics [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025630]
• 7. Reframing Three-Dimensional Morphometrics Through Functional... [https://arxiv.org/html/2509.00650v1]
• 8. Geometric morphometrics in the cloud - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1567134819300152]
• 9. approach for classifying... Geometric morphometrics [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11785739/]
• 10. MorphoJ User's Guide [https://morphometrics.uk/MorphoJ_guide/]
• 11. - Wikipedia Generalized Procrustes analysis [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_Procrustes_analysis]
• 12. of 3D Head Scan Shape for U.S. Respirator Users Analysis Data [https://asp-eurasipjournals.springeropen.com/articles/10.1155/2010/248954]
• 13. gpagen function - RDocumentation [https://www.rdocumentation.org/packages/geomorph/versions/4.0.10/topics/gpagen]
• 14. Geometric morphometrics - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/chapter/edited-volume/abs/pii/B978012815764000023X]
• 15. procGPA: Generalised in Procrustes : Statistical... analysis shapes [https://rdrr.io/cran/shapes/man/procGPA.html]
• 16. GitHub - mmayo888/GeneralizedProcrustesAnalysis: GPA for 2D data ... [https://github.com/mmayo888/GeneralizedProcrustesAnalysis]
• 17. and sex differences of the adult human mandible... Shape variation [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-57617-7?error=cookies_not_supported&code=9165b8e8-7372-4d73-b71c-ee27a6457c79]
• 18. vs PLS-DA vs OPLS-DA: Key Differences and How to Choose for... PCA [https://www.metwarebio.com/metabolomic-analyses-comparison-of-pca-pls-da-and-opls-da/]
• 19. : Reducing Dimensionality in... Principal Component Analysis [https://editverse.com/principal-component-analysis-reducing-dimensionality-in-2024-2025-research/]
• 20. and t-SNE for Dimensionality Reduction | MoldStud Comparing PCA [https://moldstud.com/articles/p-comparing-pca-and-t-sne-which-dimensionality-reduction-technique-is-best-for-your-data]
• 21. Linear Discriminant Comparing (LDA) and Analysis Techniques PCA [https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/comparing-linear-discriminant-analysis-lda-pca-techniques]
• 22. Frontiers | A Step-by-Step Guide for Geometric Morphometrics of Floral Symmetry [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2018.01433/full]
• 23. RETRACTED: Biases of Principal ( Component ) in... Analysis PCA [https://elifesciences.org/reviewed-preprints/94685v2]
• 24. landmark-based geometric morphometric: Topics by Science.gov [https://www.science.gov/topicpages/l/landmark-based+geometric+morphometric]
• 25. Deep Learning Outperforms Geometric for... Morphometrics [https://archaeo.peercommunityin.org/articles/rec?id=502]
• 26. Frontiers | Unlocking species identity: geometric of... morphometrics [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/insect-science/articles/10.3389/finsc.2025.1558242/full]
• 27. of Tabanus (Diptera: Tabanidae) in Western... Species classification [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39995615/]
• 28. (PDF) Geometric as a Morphometrics Tool for Cryptic... Diagnostic [https://www.academia.edu/144031167/Geometric_Morphometrics_as_a_Diagnostic_Tool_for_Cryptic_Agricultural_Pests_Insights_from_Nezarini_Stink_Bugs_Hemiptera_Heteroptera_Pentatomidae_1]
• 29. A Critical Comparison Between Template-Based and... | SpringerLink [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-75291-9_8]
• 30. A 3D Facial Reconstruction Evaluation Methodology: Comparing ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2502.09425v1]
• 31. of Astragalus and Shape Variation... Geometric Morphometrics [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12023762/]
• 32. Structure-based drug design with geometric deep learning - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36842415/]
• 33. Comparability of skeletal fibulae surfaces generated by different source... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9358749/]
• 34. New diagnostic criteria for metopic ridges and trigonocephaly... [https://ojrd.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13023-024-03197-8]
• 35. Tooth shape and sex estimation: a 3D geometric ... morphometric [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12297115/]
• 36. of different malocclusions in lateral skull... Geometric morphometrics [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00056-016-0057-x]
• 37. The Novel Application of Geometric Morphometrics with Principal Component Analysis to Existing G Protein-Coupled Receptor (GPCR) Structures - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8541025/]
• 38. SHREC 2025: Protein Surface Shape Retrieval including Electrostatic potential [https://arxiv.org/html/2509.12976]
• 39. of Atlas (C1) and Axis (C2) Morphometry in Aksaray... Evaluation [https://www.arccjournals.com/journal/indian-journal-of-animal-research/BF-2029]
• 40. -landmarking approaches for analyzing 3D cranial... Comparing semi [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12088985/]
• 41. Comparing semi -landmarking approaches for analyzing ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33483951/]
• 42. Assessing the application of landmark -free morphometrics to... [https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-025-02377-9]
• 43. Intranasal drug delivery: opportunities and toxicologic challenges during drug development | Drug Delivery and Translational Research [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13346-020-00891-5]
• 44. Frontiers | Research progress in brain-targeted nasal drug delivery [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/aging-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnagi.2023.1341295/full]
• 45. The nose has it: Opportunities and challenges for intranasal drug ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9829802/]
• 46. Imaging of intranasal drug delivery to the brain - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7076302/]
• 47. Numerical Comparison of Nasal Aerosol Administration Systems for... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29288465/]
• 48. The relative performance of geometric and... morphometrics [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10049884/]
• 49. Methods for studying allometry in geometric ... morphometrics [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10682-022-10170-z]
• 50. cefotaxime and ceftriaxone in combating meningitis... Comparing [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-78327-w?error=cookies_not_supported&code=5e7984d8-8a9e-4b42-ab7a-adebbe15fbeb]
• 51. Improvement of Intranasal Drug with Intravail... Delivery [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40268-021-00360-5]
• 52. of children and adolescents from Age using... estimation mandibles [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-21221-0?error=cookies_not_supported&code=70b9c29b-af84-45fc-a92b-7fb43130fe7a]
• 53. morphology as an indicator of human subadult Mandibular ... age [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19291478/]
• 54. Technical note: Age estimation from mandible by lateral cephalogram: a preliminary study - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22689354/]
• 55. (PDF) Age from Estimation by Lateral Cephalogram... Mandible [https://www.academia.edu/1898663/Age_Estimation_from_Mandible_by_Lateral_Cephalogram_A_Preliminary_Study]
• 56. Quantifications of Mandibular Trabecular Bone Microstructure Using... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9598395/]
• 57. Age assessment from mandible: comparison of radiographic and histologic methods - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21655658/]
• 58. Geometric morphometric analysis of sexual dimorphism in the mandible from panoramic X-ray images - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6981353/]
• 59. Discovery GPCR Drugs [https://www.cusabio.com/c-21098.html]
• 60. Visualizing the GPCR Network: Classification and Evolution | Scientific Reports [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15707-9]
• 61. GPCRdb [https://gpcrdb.org/]
• 62. GPCRVS - AI-driven Decision Support System for GPCR Virtual Screening - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11900134/]
• 63. Target identification and mechanism of action in chemical biology and drug discovery - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5543995/]
• 64. Evaluation of Arm Anthropometry for Assessing Pediatric Body Composition: Evidence from Healthy and Sick Children | Pediatric Research [https://www.nature.com/articles/pr2006183]
• 65. Evaluation of arm anthropometry for assessing pediatric body composition: evidence from healthy and sick children - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16641219/]
• 66. approach for classifying... Geometric morphometrics [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39890869/]
• 67. (PDF) Describing the children 's body shape by means of Geometric ... [https://www.academia.edu/99457539/Describing_the_childrens_body_shape_by_means_of_Geometric_Morphometric_techniques]
• 68. Measurement Toolkit - Simple measures - arm anthropometry [https://www.measurement-toolkit.org/anthropometry/objective-methods/simple-measures-muac]
• 69. Improving the quality of child anthropometry: Manual anthropometry in the Body Imaging for Nutritional Assessment Study (BINA) - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5730209/]
• 70. Geometric morphometrics approach for classifying children’s nutritional status on out of sample data | Scientific Reports [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-85718-4]
• 71. Analyzing the facial nerve at Zuker’s point using geometric ... [https://jkamprs.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40902-025-00481-w]
• 72. on fossil shark teeth Geometric morphometrics [https://palaeo-electronica.org/content/2025/5603-geometric-morphometrics-on-fossil-shark-teeth]
• 73. In-sample vs. Out - of - sample of 888... - CXO Advisory Performance [https://www.cxoadvisory.com/big-ideas/in-sample-vs-out-of-sample-performance-of-888-trading-strategies/]
• 74. Functional data geometric morphometrics with machine learning for craniodental shape classification in shrews | Scientific Reports [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-66246-z]
• 75. A new VIKOR-based in-sample- out - of - sample classifier with... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10479-019-03223-0]
• 76. - Cross in validation ... methods principal component analysis [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02511446]
• 77. Tips on Principal | by Nicolo Cosimo... | Medium Component Analysis [https://nicolo-albanese.medium.com/tips-on-principal-component-analysis-7116265971ad]
• 78. How to cross-validate PCA, clustering, and matrix decomposition models · Its Neuronal [https://alexhwilliams.info/itsneuronalblog/2018/02/26/crossval/]
• 79. Tooth shape and sex estimation: a 3D geometric ... morphometric [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13205-025-04439-7]
• 80. Mastering Principal Regression: 5 Key Steps for Success Component [https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/mastering-principal-component-regression-5-steps]
• 81. Frontiers | Validation of wing geometric in... morphometrics [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/insect-science/articles/10.3389/finsc.2025.1542467/full]
• 82. Soft-Tissue Analysis of Different Sagittal Skeletal Patterns Using the... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9949938/]
• 83. The use of the geometric morphometric method to illustrate shape difference in the skulls of different-aged horses - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7568715/]
• 84. Is shape in the eye of the beholder? Assessing landmarking error in... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10440062/]
• 85. Shape analysis, a field in need of careful validation - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6869375/]
• 86. Tools for quantitative form description; an evaluation of different software packages for semi-landmark analysis - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4655098/]
• 87. MorphoJ: an integrated software package for geometric morphometrics - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21429143/]
• 88. Morphometrics, 3D Imaging, and Craniofacial Development - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5299999/]
• 89. of geometric morphometric outline methods in the... Comparison [https://frontiersinzoology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-9994-3-15]
• 90. Fourier Analysis - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/fourier-analysis]
• 91. Shape-changing chains for morphometric analysis of 2D and 3D, open or closed outlines | Scientific Reports [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-00911-5]
• 92. Tools for quantitative form description; an evaluation of different... [https://peerj.com/articles/1417/]
• 93. (PDF) Geometric , morphometrics of otolith shape... Fourier analysis [https://www.academia.edu/13361526/Geometric_morphometrics_Fourier_analysis_of_otolith_shape_and_nuclear_DNA_markers_distinguish_two_anchovy_species_Engraulis_spp_in_the_Eastern_Mediterranean_Sea]
• 94. [PDF] Geometric , morphometrics of otolith shape... Fourier analysis [https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Geometric-morphometrics%2C-Fourier-analysis-of-shape%2C-Karahan-Borsa/651390d87c650265ec9241eda9823a63e29c330a]
• 95. Quantitative Analysis of Fish Morphology Through Landmark and Outline-based Geometric Morphometrics with Free Software [https://bio-protocol.org/en/bpdetail?id=5087&type=0]
• 96. Geometric morphometrics analysis of forensically important Sarcophaga species - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11910162/]
• 97. Unveiling Nature’s Architecture: Geometric Morphometrics as an Analytical Tool in Plant Biology - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11901851/]
• 98. and Sample error in size studies... sampling geometric morphometric [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00435-007-0036-2]
• 99. Geometric morphometrics and machine learning as tools for the identification of sibling mosquito species of the Maculipennis complex (Anopheles) - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1567134821003324]
• 100. Morphometrics - Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphometrics]
• 101. (PDF) Fractal analysis of ostracod shell variability: A comparison with... [https://www.academia.edu/73925644/Fractal_analysis_of_ostracod_shell_variability_A_comparison_with_geometric_and_classic_morphometrics]
• 102. and Comparing methods to... classical geometric morphometric [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13592-019-00651-6]
• 103. Digital morphometrics: Application of MorphoLeaf in shape visualization and species delimitation, using Cucurbitaceae leaves as a model - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8564096/]
• 104. MusMorph, a database of standardized mouse morphology data for morphometric meta-analyses | Scientific Data [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-022-01338-x]
• 105. Object Detection: Key Metrics for Computer Vision Performance in 2025 | Label Your Data [https://labelyourdata.com/articles/object-detection-metrics]
• 106. Experimental Investigation of Geometric Morphometrics for Weapon Identification from Three Dimensional Data within Skeletal Trauma Analysis - Teesside University's Research Portal [https://research.tees.ac.uk/en/studentTheses/experimental-investigation-of-geometric-morphometrics-for-weapon-]
• 107. Top 7 AI Benchmarks to Compare ... - ChatBench Deep Learning [https://www.chatbench.org/what-are-the-most-widely-used-ai-benchmarks-for-comparing-the-performance-of-deep-learning-frameworks/]
• 108. of GMP Deficiencies in Pharmaceuticals Industry Classification [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/classification-gmp-deficiencies-pharmaceuticals-industry-shiva]
• 109. and molecular Geometric for... morphometric techniques [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36339998/]
• 110. Geometric morphometric analysis of malocclusion on lateral cephalograms in Malaysian population - PMC [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6952698/]
• 111. Comparison of geometric morphometric outline methods in the discrimination of age-related differences in feather shape - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1592095/]
• 112. Ancestry determination using geometric morphometrics [https://discovery.dundee.ac.uk/en/studentTheses/ancestry-determination-using-geometric-morphometrics/]
• 113. Validation of wing geometric morphometrics in Chrysodeixis spp. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to support pest identification in invasive species survey programs - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39944215/]
• 114. R: Procrustes ANOVA/regression for Procrustes shape variables [https://search.r-project.org/CRAN/refmans/geomorph/html/procD.lm.html]
• 115. Chapter 38 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) | JABSTB: Statistical Design and Analysis of Experiments with R [https://tjmurphy.github.io/jabstb/manova.html]
• 116. ( Multivariate ) Benefits and... - Statistics By Jim ANOVA MANOVA [https://statisticsbyjim.com/anova/multivariate-anova-manova-benefits-use/]