MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037397419 · doi:10.2319/010908-12.1

Stability of Maxillary Expansion and Tongue Posture

2008· article· en· W2037397419 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 · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTongueMedicineRadiographyOrthodonticsDentistryCephalometrySignificant differenceSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the adaptive changes and the stability in tongue posture following rapid maxillary expansion (RME) in patients without any signs or symptoms of respiratory disturbances. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Growing subjects with maxillary constrictions and bilateral buccal crossbites were included in the treatment group (n = 20). A control group (n = 20) comprised subjects with normal dentoskeletal features. RME appliances were used in the treatment group, with an average active expansion of 15 +/- 2 days. Cephalometric radiographs were traced and digitized to evaluate static tongue posture before RME and 6.75 +/- 0.48 months after RME. Follow-up radiographic evaluations of 17 expansion cases were also performed after an average of 29.25 +/- 1.85 months. Independent and paired t-tests were conducted to evaluate changes in tongue posture within and between groups. RESULTS: Results revealed significant reductions of tongue-to-palate (P < .05) as well as hyoid bone-to-mandibular plane (P < .01) distances following RME. The new tongue posture was found to be stable during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: A higher tongue posture can be obtained with RME in children with no reported respiratory disturbances.

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)0.000
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 score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.250 · 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