Assessment of Facial and Cranial Development and Comparison of Anthropometric Ratios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anthropometry is the biologic science of human body measurement. Craniofacial anthropometry discusses the characteristics on the measures of different soft and hard tissues of the head and face, and it is considered an important paraclinical record for the growth and development of the index and also for the diagnosis and curing orthodontic matters. Studying the craniofacial anthropometrics ratios is very useful in sciences such as dentistry, medicine, maxillofacial surgery, growth and development studies, plastic surgery, bioengineering, and nonmedical branches such as respiratory equipment and eye-glasses industries. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to determine Iranian cranial and facial anthropometric ratios and compare anthropometric ratios between Iranian and Canadian populations. METHODS: This cross-sectional analytical study was done randomly on 564 four-to-eleven-year-old boys from Shirvan (North Khorasan, Iran) with normal face patterns. Facial and cranial ratios were estimated and compared. Data were analyzed by SPSS software. The mean values of these parameters were calculated .Finally, the regression line and the growth coefficient were determined for each parameter. Furthermore, the mean anthropometric measurement of Iranians was compared with Canadians. Student t test was used for comparing the measured values. RESULTS: Iranian population when born has hypereuryprosopic face and hypercephalic cranium form. While getting older, the midface height increases, face becomes more prominent, chin becomes shorter, and the face and cranium change to eurycephalic and hyperleptoprosopic form, respectively. Comparison of results related to the face and cranium size between Iranian and Canadian boys (4-11 years old) showed that many craniofacial ratios have significant differences (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately, all of the anthropometric measurements in Iranian population and Canadians were significantly different. Considering the significant difference in the facial and cranial anthropologic ratios and size among Iranians and Canadians, the results obtained from Canadians should not be applied as criteria for treatment plans. Because of the wide population affinity combinations in Iran, more studies, with wider variations, should be conducted among different Iranian population affinity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".