Dental Maturity Curves in Finnish Children: Demirjian's Method Revisited and Polynomial Functions for Age Estimation
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
Dental maturity was studied from 2213 dental panoramic radiographs of healthy ethnic Finns from southern Finland, aged between 2 and 19 years. The aim was to provide new Finnish maturity tables and curves and to compare the efficiency of Demirjian's method when differently weighted scores and polynomial regressions are used. The inter-ethnic variations lead us to calculate specific Finnish weighted scores. Demirjian's method gives maturity score as a function of age and seems better adapted for clinicians because, in their case, the maturity score is unknown. Polynomial functions give age as a function of maturity score and are statically adapted for age estimation studies. Finnish dental maturity tables and development curves are given for Demirjian's method and for polynomial functions. Sexual dimorphism is established for the same weighted score for girls and boys, and girls present a greater maturity than boys for all of age groups. Polynomial functions are highly reliable (0.19% of misclassifies) and the percentile method, using Finnish weighted scores, is very accurate (+/- 1.95 years on average, between 2 and 18 years of age). This suggests that polynomial functions are most useful in forensic sciences, while Demirjian's method is most useful for dental health clinicians.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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