Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between the width of 3 or 4 fingers of one hand and maximum mouth opening (MMO) in healthy subjects. METHODS: One hundred and forty dental students (age 21 to 42 years, mean 27.4 years) participated in the study. The ability of each subject to position 3 or 4 fingers, vertically aligned, between the upper and lower central incisors up to the first distal interphalangeal folds, was documented. Measurements of MMO and the width of 3 fingers (index, middle and ring fingers) and 4 fingers (index, middle, ring and little fingers) were recorded. RESULTS: All subjects were able to position 3 fingers (of both the right and left hands) between the upper and lower central incisors. Only 12 subjects were able to position 4 fingers (both right and left) in this way. There were no significant differences among the measurements of MMO (mean 48.8 mm), 3 fingers of the right hand (mean 47.3 mm) and 3 fingers of the left hand (mean 47.0 mm) (p > 0.05). However, MMO was significantly different from the width of 4 fingers of the right hand (mean 58.1 mm) and 4 fingers of the left hand (mean 57.5 mm) (p < 0.001). Moreover, there was a strong positive correlation between MMO and the 3-finger measurements (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings strongly suggest that the ability to position 3 fingers in the mouth during dental examination is a convenient index for assessing normal MMO
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".