MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Determination of the Chronological Age of Skull Base Suture Closure Using Computed Tomography

2012· article· en· W2315076144 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sattam S. Lingawi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Basic & Applied Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCraniofacial Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkullSynchondrosisMedicineFibrous jointAnatomySagittal sutureComputed tomographyOssificationOccipital boneSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to determine the postnatal chronological age of central and posterior skull base suture closure using computed tomography. The central and posterior skull base suture of pediatric brain CT’s obtained from 75 girls and 125 boys of varying ages (newborn to 18 years) were evaluated for this purpose. Premature infants of less than 38 weeks gestation, cases of congenital skull base malformations, and cranial anomalies were excluded. All brain CT studies were performed using 3 mm axial slice thickness at the skull base level. The central and posterior skull base sutures, synchondroses and ossification centers were all assessed for normal appearance and age of closure. The age of initial and completed fusion for the 12 main sutures in the occipital and sphenoid bones, were determined. Data obtained during the study provides CT scans standard for normal age of closure of the central and posterior skull base sutures that may assist in the future evaluation of skull base fractures, dysplasia and deformities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Basic & Applied SciencesSame topicCraniofacial Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207