A comprehensive analysis of zygomatic symmetry and implications for zygomatic bone reconstruction (922.6)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess the validity of the current approach to craniofacial repairs whereby the contralateral hemiface is used as a template for surgical repair, this study aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of facial skeletal symmetry in normal human faces beginning with the zygomatic bone. Three‐dimensional models generated in OsiriX from the CT scans of 30 adult male patients displaying normal skeletal anatomy were used to assess the symmetry at seven bilateral zygomatic landmarks. All landmarks displayed a deviation from perfect symmetry, ranging from 1.41 to 3.13 mm, and statistically significant differences were observed in the asymmetry scores across the seven zygomatic landmarks (F(6,203)=5.951, p<0.005). The zygion demonstrated significantly greater asymmetry than other more medially‐located landmarks including the orbitale, jugale, and frontozygomatic suture. These results suggest that bony asymmetry can be measured and there is a significant degree of asymmetry in the zygomatic bone, particularly in the temporal process and extending into the zygomatic arch. Such deviations may warrant a re‐evaluation of current surgical approaches to the repair of zygomatic bone fractures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".