Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although symmetry is hailed as a fundamental goal of aesthetic and reconstructive surgery, our tools for measuring this outcome have been limited and subjective. With the advent of three-dimensional photogrammetry, surface geometry can be captured, manipulated, and measured quantitatively. Until now, few normative data existed with regard to facial surface symmetry. Here, we present a method for reproducibly calculating overall facial symmetry and present normative data on 100 subjects. METHODS: We enrolled 100 volunteers who underwent three-dimensional photogrammetry of their faces in repose. We collected demographic data on age, sex, and race and subjectively scored facial symmetry. We calculated the root mean square deviation (RMSD) between the native and reflected faces, reflecting about a plane of maximum symmetry. We analyzed the interobserver reliability of the subjective assessment of facial asymmetry and the quantitative measurements and compared the subjective and objective values. We also classified areas of greatest asymmetry as localized to the upper, middle, or lower facial thirds. This cluster of normative data was compared with a group of patients with subtle but increasing amounts of facial asymmetry. RESULTS: We imaged 100 subjects by three-dimensional photogrammetry. There was a poor interobserver correlation between subjective assessments of asymmetry (r = 0.56). There was a high interobserver reliability for quantitative measurements of facial symmetry RMSD calculations (r = 0.91-0.95). The mean RMSD for this normative population was found to be 0.80 ± 0.24 mm. Areas of greatest asymmetry were distributed as follows: 10% upper facial third, 49% central facial third, and 41% lower facial third. Precise measurement permitted discrimination of subtle facial asymmetry within this normative group and distinguished norms from patients with subtle facial asymmetry, with placement of RMSDs along an asymmetry ruler. CONCLUSIONS: Facial surface symmetry, which is poorly assessed subjectively, can be easily and reproducibly measured using three-dimensional photogrammetry. The RMSD for facial asymmetry of healthy volunteers clusters at approximately 0.80 ± 0.24 mm. Patients with facial asymmetry due to a pathologic process can be differentiated from normative facial asymmetry based on their RMSDs.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it