MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1908887736 · doi:10.1002/ajpa.22429

Molar size and shape in the estimation of biological ancestry: A comparison of relative cusp location using geometric morphometrics and interlandmark distances

2013· article· en· W1908887736 on OpenAlexaff
Michael W. Kenyhercz, Alexandra R. Klales, William Kenyhercz

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMorphological variations and asymmetry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersAmerican Academy of Forensic Sciences
KeywordsCusp (singularity)Principal component analysisCentroidMolarMathematicsProcrustes analysisMorphometricsDiscriminant function analysisShape analysis (program analysis)Linear discriminant analysisOrientation (vector space)GeometryStatisticsOrthodonticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human molars exhibit varying shapes when viewed from the occlusal surface. Available methods for quantifying molar occlusal shape have historically been confined to qualitative descriptions. The present study utilized geometric morphometric analyses to capture molar shape as defined through relative cusp locations. Cusp apices of maxillary and mandibular first and second molars were digitized from 190 American Blacks and Whites to estimate biological affinity through the shape of relative cusp locations. The coordinate data were subjected to a Generalized Procrustes Analysis to generate Procrustes coordinates and calculate centroid sizes. Procrustes coordinates were then subjected to a principal component analysis to examine the direction and magnitude of shape change inherent in the sample. Centroid size and major shape component group means were compared with t-tests. Interlandmark distances were then calculated from the raw coordinate information and also subjected to a principal components analysis. Procrustes coordinates and the principal components derived from them with and without centroid size, along with the interlandmark distances and the principal components derived from them, were each subjected to a discriminant function analysis to examine which methods yielded the highest correct classification between population groups. Total correct classifications ranged from 62.7% to 87.9% depending on the variables forward stepwise selected for each analysis. Using a combination of the second maxillary molar and first mandibular molar yielded the most optimistic results and corroborates theoretical models of molar development.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physical AnthropologySame topicMorphological variations and asymmetryFrench-language works237,207