A Comparative Reliability Analysis of Computer-Generated Bitemark Overlays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the reliability of two methods used to produce computer-generated bitemark overlays with Adobe Photoshop (Adobe Systems Inc., San Jose, CA). Scanned images of twelve dental casts were sent to 30 examiners with different experience levels. Examiners were instructed to produce an overlay for each cast image based on the instructions provided for the two techniques. Measurements of the area and the x-y coordinate position of the biting edges of the anterior teeth were obtained using Scion Image software program (Scion Corporation, Frederick, MD) for each overlay. The inter- and intra-reliability assessment of the measurements was performed using an analysis of variance and calculation of reliability coefficients. The assessment of the area measurements showed significant variances seen in the examiner variable for both techniques resulting in low reliability coefficients. Conversely, the results for the positional measurements showed no significant differences in the variances between examiners with exceptionally high reliability coefficients. It was concluded that both techniques were reliable methods to produce bitemark overlays in assessing tooth position.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".