Surface Anatomy of the Face in Down's Syndrome: Age-Related Changes of Anthropometric Proportion Indices in the Craniofacial Regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to determine the age-related changes in normal and abnormal proportion indices in Down's syndrome patients between 1 to 5, 6 to 15, and 16 to 36 years of age. Nine indices were analyzed in five craniofacial regions of 125 subjects: 70.2% to 79.0% were normal and 21.0% to 29.8% abnormal. Proportionate indices increased in frequency in all age groups in a much higher percentage than disproportionate ones. In the oldest group, the frequency of normal proportions significantly increased in the head and trended higher in the facial, orbital, and nasal regions, and lower in the ear. Disproportions showed a similar pattern, with a decreasing frequency in all regions except the ear. The variations of harmony and disharmony in normal proportions, and moderate and severe in disproportions, helped clarify the morphological changes influencing the craniofacial design. Among proportionate ratios, harmony ranged from 45% to 65.5% in age group 1 and from 30% to 87.5% in group 3. No cases of severe subnormal disproportions were seen in the nasal tip protrusion-nose width and nasal root depth indices in age group 1, and none in the cephalic index, midface-lower face depth, and nasal tip protrusion-nose width indices in group 3. The 20-year age range of group 3 helped show the post-maturation improvements of the face and the remedying effect of the extended growth rate on some initial facial disproportions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".