Orbital Measurements in the Presence of Epicanthi in Healthy North American Caucasians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anthropometric examination of 1,312 healthy North American Caucasians (654 boys, 658 girls) aged 6-18 years revealed epicanthus in 387 subjects (29.5%, 198 boys and 189 girls). Significantly more epicanthi were minor (232, 59.9%) than major, i.e., moderate or marked (155, 40.1%; SED = 3.5, diff. = 19.8). Only one quarter of major epicanthi were marked, i.e., covered the inner canthus (39, 3% of entire sample population). The prevalence of major epicanthi decreased significantly with age in both sexes. Surface measurements did not confirm the visual illusion that the interocular distance is wide in subjects with epicanthus. The nasal root was on average shallower and the eye fissure shorter and more tilted in subjects with major epicanthus than in those without. Though minor epicanthus in Caucasians is a statistical variation of normal eye lid structure, major epicanthus persisting in adulthood may indicate developmental disturbance. Anthropometry provides accurate measurements of orbital dimensions necessary to identify such developmental 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".