Three-Dimensional Computed Tomography Cephalometry of Plagiocephaly: Asymmetry and Shape Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate facial asymmetry associated with both deformational and synostotic plagiocephaly and to identify variables based on skeletal landmarks that distinguish the conditions and quantify severity. DESIGN: Retrospective, cross sectional. SETTING: Australian Craniofacial Unit, Adelaide. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportional differences between bilateral distances and principal component (PC) analysis of the skeletal landmarks. PATIENTS: The three-dimensional positions of 78 osseous landmarks were determined from computed tomography (CT) scans of 21 patients with deformational plagiocephaly (DP), 20 patients with unilateral coronal synostosis (UCS), and 2 patients with unilateral lambdoid synostosis (ULS). RESULTS: For both DP and UCS, significant asymmetry was found for the orbital depths, mandibular lengths, maxillary depths, zygomatic arch lengths, lateral base of the parietal bone, and the angle between the anterior and the posterior cranial base projected onto the axial plane. The small sample size for ULS precluded definitive statistical statements but allowed some useful comparisons with the other conditions. The first three PC scores were able to distinguish among the three conditions and which side was affected. CONCLUSIONS: The asymmetry of the cranial base and facial structures, arising from localized abnormality or deformational forces in either the frontal or the occipital regions, can be quantified by a plethora of bilateral features or summarized by PC analysis.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".