Asymmetry of the parental craniofacial skeleton in orofacial clefting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate size-related and shape-related craniofacial skeletal asymmetries in the parents of children with orofacial clefting (OFC). DESIGN: Retrospective PA cephalometric study. SETTING: Glasgow/Dundee, Scotland. SUBJECTS: Ninety-two parental volunteers from a completely ascertained sample of 286 children born with OFC between 1980-1984 in the West of Scotland. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A conventional cephalometric asymmetry analysis (CCAA) evaluated size-related right:left asymmetry comprising eight linear distance, nine angular, and three mid-facial area measurements. The right and left landmark configurations were uniformly scaled using Procrustes superimposition and Euclidean Distance Matrix Analysis (EDMA) evaluated shape-related right-left asymmetry. RESULTS: The three linear distances, nine angles and two areas differed between the right and left sides of the craniofacial complex (P <0.05) indicate size asymmetry characterized by a wider left side of the face and a shorter vertical dimension on the right side (directional asymmetry). EDMA detected shape asymmetry [T statistic = 2.671 (P = 0.10)]. Forty per cent of the EDMA ratios were clinically importantly larger or smaller on the left and right sides respectively, involving landmarks anatomically and morphogenetically important in OFC. CONCLUSION: Size and shape directional asymmetries characterize the parental craniofacial skeleton in OFC. This heritable directional craniofacial skeletal asymmetry could be of relevance in the left-sided predilection of OFC.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".