MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Coloration of Silicone Prostheses: Technology versus Clinical Perception. Is There a Difference? Part 2, Clinical Evaluation of a Pilot Study

2010· article· en· W1606687573 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Prosthodontics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Facial Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsMisericordia Community Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSiliconeSignificant differenceSkin colorColor differenceSample (material)Color measurementMedicineMathematicsMaterials scienceComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceStatisticsChemistryChromatographyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The aim of this investigation was to explore the relationship between an objective computer measurement of color difference (ΔE) and subjective clinical opinion of a "good" color match between silicone samples and skin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In Part 1 of this study, silicone samples were colored to match the skin of 19 African-Canadian subjects based on spectrophotometric measurements and pigment formulae determined by computerized color formulation software. Four iterative samples were prepared for each subject; a ΔE value was recorded for each sample to represent the color difference between the silicone sample and skin. In this article, Part 2, five judges independently assessed the color match of the silicone samples to the skin of each of the subjects. Skin and silicone samples were rated on a five-point scale as a measure of "color match." A multivariate analysis was used to determine relationships between judges' assessments and the following variables: color difference between silicone and skin (ΔE), pigment loading, and skin characteristics (L*, a*, b*). RESULTS: There was a positive correlation between judges' scores and low ΔE values for the first two samples. All judges rated the first sample a poorer color match than the fourth sample (p < 0.015). The third sample performed better overall according to judges. Increased pigment loading in the fourth sample resulted in poorer scores. A trend was observed in pigment selection based on skin values, though no significant relationships were determined. CONCLUSION: Spectrophotometry and computerized color formulation technology offer an enhanced understanding of color for its artistic application in facial prosthetic treatment. While some correlation between the objective and subjective assessments of color match exist, it is not a simple relationship. Further study is required to better understand the relationship between technology and clinical perception, specifically in objective and subjective assessments of a "good" color match of silicone to skin.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.222
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it