A Three-dimensional Analysis of Zygomatic Symmetry in Normal, Uninjured Faces
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
Current approaches to facial reconstruction are based on the assumption of facial symmetry, though this has yet to be established in the literature. Through quantitative and qualitative analysis, symmetry of normal, male faces is examined here using the zygomatic complex as a bellwether for the rest of the facial skeleton. Three-dimensional models reconstructed from the computed tomography scans of 30 adult male patients displaying normal facial skeletal anatomy were analyzed. Seven zygomatic landmarks were identified on all craniofacial models, and asymmetry scores were calculated based on the average deviation distance upon reflection of 1 hemiface across the midfacial plane. Deviation maps were then generated for each zygomatic pair to enable visualization of the asymmetry. All landmarks displayed a slight (<3 mm) deviation from perfect symmetry, and analysis of zygomatic form asymmetry revealed an average of 0.4 mm of surface deviation between hemifaces. The presence of such slight asymmetries in the zygoma warrants further investigation as to the clinical relevance of such skeletal asymmetries from both an esthetic and biomechanical consideration to provide insight as to the proper approach to zygomatic restoration in cases of zygomatic fracture.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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