MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031978910 · doi:10.2319/010509-10r.1

Reliability of Traditional Cephalometric Landmarks as Seen in Three-Dimensional Analysis in Maxillary Expansion Treatments

2009· article· en· W2031978910 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Angle Orthodontist · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntraclass correlationMedicineOrthodonticsCephalometryReliability (semiconductor)Bonferroni correctionDentistryMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate intra-examiner and inter-examiner reliability of 3D CBCT-generated landmarks previously used in traditional 2D cephalometry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four CBCTs NewTom 3G (Aperio Services, Verona, Italy) were randomly selected from patients participating in a clinical trial involving maxillary expansion treatments. The principal investigator located the landmarks five times, and four other investigators located the same landmarks once. Intra-examiner and inter-examiner reliability values were determined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). To assist in interpretation of the clinical significance of landmark identification differences, average mean differences for x, y, and z landmark coordinates were determined from the repeated assessments. Landmarks then were separated into groups with respect to the region they represented and then were compared via repeated measures ANOVA and multiple comparisons via Bonferroni corrected alpha. RESULTS: Intra-examiner and inter-examiner reliability for x, y, and z coordinates for all landmarks were acceptable, all being greater than 0.80. Most of the mean measurement differences obtained from trials within the principal investigator in all three axes were less than 1.5 mm. Inter-examiner mean measurement differences generally were larger than the intra-examiner differences. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this, the best landmarks for use in verifying expansion treatment results are Ekm, buccal surface, and apexes of upper molars, upper premolars and upper canines, and buccal surfaces of lower molars and lower canines. Foramen Spinosum, ELSA, Auditory External Meatus, and Dorsum Foramen Magnum demonstrated adequate reliability for determining a standardized reference system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.827

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it