Ocular Manifestations of Apert and Crouzon Syndromes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are significant differences in the ocular manifestations of Apert and Crouzon syndromes. Here, we present qualitative and quantitative data about the oculo-orbital region to demonstrate these differences. Although ocular protosis and hypertelorism characterize both disorders, the nature of the orbital dystopia differs. In Crouzon syndrome, ocular proptosis is primarily caused by retrusion of the lateral and inferior orbital margins with a very short orbital floor. In Apert syndrome, the eyeglobe actually protrudes in relation to the cranial base and to the orbit, probably resulting from marked protrusion of the lateral orbital wall. The implications account for some of the differences encountered. Asymmetry is associated with Apert syndrome frequently. Exotropia is found in Crouzon syndrome, whereas the V pattern is more characteristic in Apert syndrome with divergent upgaze and esotropic downgaze. Subluxation of the eyeglobe is found in some cases of Crouzon syndrome but is not found in Apert syndrome. Optic atrophy found in approximately 20% of Crouzon syndrome patients is not characteristic of Apert syndrome. Structural alterations of the extraocular muscles have been associated with some cases of Apert syndrome, suggesting that ocular motility disturbances in Apert syndrome may not be caused solely by mechanical factors. Absence of the superior rectus and other extraocular muscles has been recorded. Furthermore, albinoid alterations of the fundus have also been associated with Apert syndrome.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it