Anthropometric Proportion Indices in the Craniofacial Regions of 73 Patients With Forms of Isolated Coronal Synostosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study group consisted of 73 North American patients (29 males and 44 females), aged between 0-5 months and 20 years, 26 with right, 33 with left, and 14 with bicoronal synostosis. Basic proportion indices were established in 5 craniofacial regions (cranial, facial, orbital, nasal, oral) calculated from 2 projective measurements [cranial: eu-eu, g-op; facial: n-gn, zy-zy; orbital: en-en, ex-ex; nasal: al-al, n-sn; oral: sn-sto, ch-ch (eu, eurion; g, glabella; op, opisthocranion; n, nasion; gn, gnathion; zy, zygion; en, endocanthion; ex, exocanthion; al, alare; sn, subnasale; sto, stomion; ch, chelion)] taken from the patients by the first author before surgery. These data were then compared with the anthropometric norms established for North American whites (Farkas LG. Anthropometry of the Head and Face. 2nd ed. Raven Press; 1994). In males, the total percentage of normal, subnormal, and supernormal proportion indices was smaller than in females in all 3 groups of patients. Generally, the difference in percentage between normal proportions was the smallest (13.1%) and the supernormal one the greatest (68%). In males, the oral measurements showed the highest frequency of normal proportions (100%) in all 3 patient groups, and the cephalic index the lowest (60%-66.7%). Among the abnormal proportions, the supernormal ones were found more often, especially in the cranial region of females with bilateral coronal synostosis (66.7%). Subnormal proportion indices were rare: none were seen in the facial region of males. A subnormal cephalic index (eu-eu/g-op) was not present in either sex in right and bicoronal synostosis and was observed in only 2 males with left coronal synostosis (13.3%). The study showed that the influence of synostosis gradually decreased from the top to the bottom of the face, with the oral region showing no abnormalities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".