Cranial base, maxillary and mandibular morphology in Down syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test the null hypothesis that there is no difference between craniofacial measurements of individuals with Down syndrome (DS) and normal controls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cephalometric analysis including additional landmarks and measurements to study specific craniofacial features was undertaken on pretreatment cephalograms of 25 patients with DS (12 male, 13 female; mean age 15.1 years) treated at The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto. Measurements were compared with those from cephalograms of racial groups age and gender matched, normal, Class I children, available from the Burlington Growth Center. Data were analyzed using paired t-tests. RESULTS: Large reductions were measured in the size and spatial relationships of craniofacial structures in the DS group. The greatest differences included a larger cranial base angle; reduced elevation of sella from FHP; reduced anterior and posterior cranial base lengths; reduced anterior and posterior face heights; smaller maxilla with reduced anterior basal and apical dimensions; and smaller mandibular ramus, body and symphyseal dimensions and proclined symphysis. Maxillary incisors were severely proclined and undererupted, while mandibular incisors were undererupted. Alveolar heights were reduced. Anterior open bite was frequently noted. Maxillary and mandibular planes exhibited forward rotation patterns, promoting overclosure. Mandibular hypoplasia was less severe than cranial base and maxillary hypoplasia. Hypodontia of one or more permanent teeth was found in 92% of the sample. CONCLUSIONS: The null hypothesis was rejected. Significant hypoplasia in endochondral, mesodermal, and ectomesenchymal derived structures of the cranium and face in subjects with DS was clearly evident. More severe platybasia than previously reported was found.
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) | 0.002 | 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".