Quantitative Topographical Evaluation of the Orbitozygomatic Complex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The orbitozygomatic complex is a tetrapod-shaped bone of the upper midfacial skeleton of particular clinical significance. By defining the malar prominence, it provides a significant contribution to the overall facial form. Moreover, it is the second most frequently fractured bone on the craniofacial skeleton. A method for quantitative determination of the position of the orbitozygomatic complex has important applications in the fields of reconstructive and aesthetic plastic surgery. METHODS: Ten individuals were evaluated using craniofacial anthropometry techniques. The position of the orbitozygomatic complex in three planes, x, y, and z, was determined by measuring linear projective distances between complex landmarks: the maxillozygion (the most prominent landmark on the malar prominence), the orbitale (the lowest point on the inferior orbital rim), the zygion (the most lateral point on the zygomatic arch), and the cranial reference landmarks (the vertex, opisthocranion, and nasion). RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Low variability between measurements within the same individual (<1.5 mm) underscores the reliability of the chosen landmarks and techniques in the determination of orbitozygomatic complex position. Second, the complex occupies a consistent position among individuals, as shown by the low intersubject variability. Third, there is no statistically significant difference in the position of the complex, in any plane of space, between the left and right sides of the face. Thus, the authors' method may be used to determine the degree of complex displacement in individuals with unilateral facial trauma or with unilateral residual postsurgical deformity, and to calculate the amount of realignment needed to produce a symmetrical facial appearance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".