Comparison of the Bolton Standards to longitudinal cephalograms superimposed on the occipital condyle (I-point)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare traditional superimposition on sella turcica and the anterior cranial base (SACB) to superimposition referenced at the occipital condyle (I-point) for demonstrating craniofacial growth and development. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Tracings for ages 8, 10, 12, 15 and 18 were chosen from the Bolton Standards of Dentofacial Developmental Growth to compare superimposition with the traditional longitudinal reference at SACB (anterior curvature of sella turcica and anterior cranial base) to reference at I-point on the antero-inferior contour of the occipital condyles in norma lateralis. The serial tracings were superimposed using both the sagittal and postero-anterior (PA) tracings. Incremental growth of landmarks was measured in relation to Cartesian coordinates and compared between the superimposition methods. RESULTS: Sagittal and PA tracing superimpositions displayed an average 7 mm greater cephalad movement of landmarks, an average 2.4 mm greater ventral movement, and comparable transverse dimension with superimposition referenced at I-point as compared to the SACB reference. CONCLUSION: I-point superimposition demonstrates physiologic growth patterns concealed by traditional registration at sella turcica. The evolution of superimposition on SACB was based on convenience and reproducibility. Fundamental principles of bone development are consistent with the occipital condyles as a more biologic reference for relative craniofacial growth. Actual vertical growth is believed to be greater than displayed in this study, due to the cross-sectional and blended nature of the sample.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".