MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2290219093 · doi:10.1080/00450618.2015.1122080

Age and sex-related variations in facial soft tissue thickness in a sample of Pakistani children

2015· article· en· W2290219093 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Waqar Jeelani, Mubassar Fida, Attiya Shaikh

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Forensic Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Rejuvenation and Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultivariate analysis of varianceDemographyEthnic groupMultivariate analysisAnalysis of varianceAge groupsMultivariate statisticsPopulationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A facial soft tissue thickness (FST) database forms the backbone of different facial reconstruction methods. Various studies have identified age, sex and ethnicity as the core factors affecting the FST of an individual. The aims of this study were to explore the changes in FST occurring during the adolescent growth period and to develop the FST database for Pakistani children. The lateral cephalograms of 231 children, aged 9–18 years, were analysed and FST was determined at the 11 midline points. Subjects were divided into five age groups (9–10, 11–12, 13–14, 15–16 and 17–18 years) to evaluate age-related variations in FST. To compare FST between males and females and among different age groups, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used. Moreover, the FST of Pakistani children was compared with those of Japanese and Canadian-Caucasoid children. Significant age-related variations in FST were present at four landmarks in boys and at six landmarks in girls. Marked ethnic differences in FST (>2 mm) were also observed at five landmarks in some of the age groups. These age-related and ethnic variations in FST warrant the use of data of appropriate age groups for a specific population for reliable outcome of facial reconstruction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of Forensic SciencesSame topicFacial Rejuvenation and Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207