Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 1, 2025
Quantification of Orofacial Phenotypes in Xenopus
Published on: November 6, 2014
Validation of 3 Computer-Aided Facial Phenotyping Tools (DeepGestalt, GestaltMatcher, and D-Score): Comparative
Alisa Maria Vittoria Reiter1, Jean Tori Pantel1,2,3, Magdalena Danyel1,4,5
1Institute of Medical Genetics and Human Genetics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Background:
While characteristic facial features provide important clues for finding the correct diagnosis in genetic syndromes, valid assessment can be challenging. The next-generation phenotyping algorithm DeepGestalt analyzes patient images and provides syndrome suggestions. GestaltMatcher matches patient images with similar facial features. The new D-Score provides a score for the degree of facial dysmorphism.
Objective:
We aimed to test state-of-the-art facial phenotyping tools by benchmarking GestaltMatcher and D-Score and comparing them to DeepGestalt.
Methods:
Using a retrospective sample of 4796 images of patients with 486 different genetic syndromes (London Medical Database, GestaltMatcher Database, and literature images) and 323 inconspicuous control images, we determined the clinical use of D-Score, GestaltMatcher, and DeepGestalt, evaluating sensitivity; specificity; accuracy; the number of supported diagnoses; and potential biases such as age, sex, and ethnicity.
Results:
DeepGestalt suggested 340 distinct syndromes and GestaltMatcher suggested 1128 syndromes. The top-30 sensitivity was higher for DeepGestalt (88%, SD 18%) than for GestaltMatcher (76%, SD 26%). DeepGestalt generally assigned lower scores but provided higher scores for patient images than for inconspicuous control images, thus allowing the 2 cohorts to be separated with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.73. GestaltMatcher could not separate the 2 classes (AUROC 0.55). Trained for this purpose, D-Score achieved the highest discriminatory power (AUROC 0.86). D-Score's levels increased with the age of the depicted individuals. Male individuals yielded higher D-scores than female individuals. Ethnicity did not appear to influence D-scores.
Conclusions:
If used with caution, algorithms such as D-score could help clinicians with constrained resources or limited experience in syndromology to decide whether a patient needs further genetic evaluation. Algorithms such as DeepGestalt could support diagnosing rather common genetic syndromes with facial abnormalities, whereas algorithms such as GestaltMatcher could suggest rare diagnoses that are unknown to the clinician in patients with a characteristic, dysmorphic face.
