Head and cervical posture in patients with temporomandibular disorders.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To determine whether patients with myogenous or mixed (ie, myogeneous plus arthrogeneous) temporomandibular disorders (TMD) had different head and cervical posture measured through angles commonly used in clinical research settings when compared to healthy individuals. METHODS: One hundred fifty-four persons participated in this study. Of these, 50 subjects were healthy, 55 subjects had myogenous TMD, and 49 subjects had mixed TMD (ie, arthrogenous plus myogenous TMD). A lateral photograph was taken with the head in the self-balanced position. Four angles were measured in the photographs: (1) Eye-Tragus-Horizontal, (2) Tragus-C7-Horizontal, (3) Pogonion-Tragus-C7, and (4) Tragus-C7-Shoulder. Alcimagen software specially designed to measure angles was used in this study. All of the measurements were performed by a single trained rater, a dental specialist in orthodontics, blinded to each subject's group status. RESULTS: The only angle that reached statistical significance among groups was the Eye-Tragus-Horizontal (F = 3.03, P = .040). Pairwise comparisons determined that a mean difference of 3.3 degrees (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.15, 6.41) existed when comparing subjects with myogenous TMD and healthy subjects (P = .036). Postural angles were not significantly related to neck disability, jaw disability, or pain intensity. Intrarater and interrater reliability of the measurements were excellent, with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values ranging between 0.996-0.998. CONCLUSION: The only statistically significant difference in craniocervical posture between patients with myogenous TMD and healthy subjects was for the Eye-Tragus-Horizontal angle, indicating a more extended position of the head. However, the difference was very small (3.3 degrees) and was judged not to be clinically significant.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".