Discrepancy in morphometrics between v3 and v4
See original GitHub issueDescribe the bug When comparing morphometrics obtained in v3 and v4, the solidity and orientation values differ.
To Reproduce
I computed morphometrics on the image.png test image located in axondeepseg/test/__test_files__/__test_demo_files__
and indeed every values are the same between versions except solidity and orientation.
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 2 years ago
- Comments:8 (8 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Geometric morphometric analysis of morphologic disparity ...
Using geometric morphometric methods, this study aims at a ... If disparity is regarded as differences between ontogenetic end points, ...
Read more >Morphological disparity in theropod ... - Wiley Online Library
The discrepancy between the two morphometric morphospaces results from different aspects of shape variation being represented by PC2 (Fig. 4).
Read more >Geometric morphometrics of different malocclusions in lateral ...
(2) We investigated if different types of occlusion were associated with a particular skeletal pattern. (3) We assessed individual variation ...
Read more >Evaluation of the morphometric covariation between palatal ...
Background. To study the covariation between palatal and craniofacial skeletal morphology in Class III growing patients through geometric ...
Read more >Size, shape, and form: concepts of allometry in geometric ...
In geometric morphometrics, this concept is implemented in ... A fundamental difference between the two concepts of allometry is that the ...
Read more >Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start FreeTop Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
Top GitHub Comments
Thank you @hermancollin for looking into this! I also agree that we should consider adopting the new convention. Because we are also updating the models with v4, it seems to me that it’s the best possible time to do this.
For the solidity, it looks a bit more convoluted. This is how it’s computed:
area_convex
is in turn computed usingskimage.morphology.convex_hull_image
. Not sure what is happening exactly here but in skimage 0.18.0 this function was changedMaybe this has something to do with it because the solidity values only differ by about 1% between v3 and v4.
But I agree with @mathieuboudreau that switching to the new convention should be considered.