Definition of Topographic Organization of Skull Profile in Normal Population and its Implications on the Role of Sutures in Skull Morphology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The geometric configuration of the skull is complex and unique to each individual. This study provides a new technique to define the outline of skull profile and attempt to find the common factors defining the ultimate skull configuration in adult population. Ninety-three lateral skull x-ray from the computed tomographic scan films were selected and digitized. The lateral skull surface was divided into 3 regions based on the presumed location of the coronal and lambdoid sutures. Three main curvatures (frontal, parietal, occipital) were consistently identified to overlap the skull periphery. The radius, cord length, and inclination of each curvature were measured. The average values for 3 defined curvatures of the skull profile were recorded. Factor analysis of the measured values produced 3 factors explaining the skull profile. The first factor explained 32% of total variance and was related to the overall size of the head as represented by total length and the radius of the curvature in the vertex and back of the head. The second factor covered 26% of the variance representing the inverse correlation between the angle of the frontal and parietal curves. The third factor revealed the direct correlation of the occipital and parietal angle. In all of these factors, the frontal zone variation was independent or opposite of the parieto-occipital zone. A strong association between the total length of the skull, occipital curve radius, and length with the sex was shown. In conclusion, the skull profile topography has large variation and can be defined mathematically by 2 distinct territories: frontal and parieto-occipital zones. These territories hinge on the coronal suture. Therefore, the coronal suture may play a dominant role in final skull configuration.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".