Photogrammetric Analysis of Eyebrow and Upper Eyelid Dimensions in South Indians and Malaysian South Indians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The eyebrow and eyelid are important sexually dimorphic and ethnic features of the face. In cosmetic surgery, maintenance of these landmarks is important to obtaining satisfactory results. OBJECTIVES: The authors quantify the dimension and position of the eyebrow and eyelid in South Indians and Malaysian South Indians and assess whether significant differences exist between the sexes and ethnic groups. METHODS: Evaluation of eyebrow and upper eyelid was performed on standardized photographs of 200 South Indian and 200 Malaysian South Indian subjects, aged 18 to 26 years. We measured eyebrow thickness, apex to lateral limbus distance, apex to lateral canthus distance, interbrow distance, medial end of the eyebrow to medial canthus, lateral end of the eyebrow to lateral canthus, eyebrow height, eyebrow apex inclination, and pretarsal skin height. The measured values were evaluated by an independent t test. We also assessed the prevalence of double lid crease and types of epicanthus and eyebrow apex positions. RESULTS: A significant difference was found between women in the South Indian and Malaysian South Indian groups for eyebrow apex to lateral limbus distance, medial end to medial canthus, pretarsal skin height, eyebrow height, and eyebrow apex inclination. Male groups showed significant ethnic difference for eyebrow apex to lateral limbus distance. Sexual dimorphism was found for all measurement categories. A double crease fold appeared in 99% of the subjects. Only epicanthus tarsalis (95%) and epicanthus superciliaris (5%) appeared in the subjects. Four types of eyebrow apex position were found. CONCLUSIONS: Ethnic and sex differences exist for eyebrow and eyelid dimensions in the 2 groups we studied. Knowledge of these trends is significant during surgical planning to obtain ideal outcomes.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".