Comparison of Techniques Used to Locate the Malar Eminence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The malar eminence is of surgical interest for several reasons including facial trauma, esthetics and congenital anomalies. Objective To compare several techniques developed to locate the malar eminence on live subjects. Methods An initial trial involving 30 men and women located the malar eminence using Hinderer's, Wilkinson's, Powell's and maxillozygion methods. A subsequent trial used a custom-made measuring device called the anthropometer to examine 11 volunteers. In this part of the study, only Hinderer's and Wilkinson's methods of intersecting lines were used in addition to the palpated maxillozygion. The location of the three points was recorded relative to the vertex, opisthocranion and facial midline. Results During the initial trial, it was recognized that Powell's method of intersecting lines describes a point too lateral to use concomitantly with the other methods of intersecting lines. The distances of Hinderer's, Wilkinson's and Powell's points from the maxillozygion were 8.5±2.9 mm, 7.6±3.3 mm and 28.4±4.8 mm, respectively. In the second part of the study, Hinderer's point, in general, is medial and inferior to the maxillozygion, while Wilkinson's point is lateral and an equal distance from the vertex as the maxillozygion. The three points appear to be randomly interspersed in their distances from the opisthocranion. Conclusions By combining the techniques of intersecting lines and direct palpation, a more comprehensive evaluation of the malar complex can be made. This is especially true in cases where there exists an asymmetry in the bony skeleton that is then compensated by the overlying soft tissues.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".