MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Longitudinal study of mandibular behavior in Class I subjects with vertical and horizontal growth

2012· article· en· W1972113639 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dirceu Barnabé Raveli, Savana de Alencar Maia, Luana Paz Sampaio, Denise Rocha Goes Landázuri, Taísa Boamorte Raveli

Bibliographic record

VenueDental Press Journal of Orthodontics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHorizontal and verticalCephalometryMandible (arthropod mouthpart)ClockwiseOrthodonticsLongitudinal sampleDentistryRotation (mathematics)MedicineMathematicsPsychologyBiologyGeometryDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate possible differences in mandibular behavior in Class I individuals with vertical and horizontal growth patterns. METHODS: The sample consisted of 20 untreated Class I individuals divided into: Group 1 comprising 10 individuals with vertical growth pattern and Group 2 comprising 10 individuals with horizontal growth pattern, all of them belonging to the Burlington Growth Center files, University of Toronto-Canada, radiographically followed-up at ages 9, 12 and 21. Cephalometric radiographs, determined mean values for a long-term evaluation of mandibular behavior using the following measurements: SNB, Co-GN, SN.GoMe, anterior facial height and posterior facial height. RESULTS: SNB and Co-Gn values were higher in horizontal growth group at all of the ages studied; SN.GoMe measure was significantly lower in horizontal growth group; anterior facial height (AFH) showed lower values in individuals with horizontal growth pattern; and posterior facial height (PFH) showed lower values in individuals with vertical growth pattern. CONCLUSION: Long-term comparisons of Class I individuals' growth tendencies indicate that there are significant differences between both groups. Mandible showed a trend to clockwise rotation in Group 1. Group 2 showed a trend to brachycephalic facial form, due to the deficit in vertical development with regard to anterior facial height.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.922

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDental Press Journal of OrthodonticsSame topicOrthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsFrench-language works237,207