Diagnostic reliability of mandibular second molar maturation in the identification of the mandibular growth peak: A longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the diagnostic reliability of mandibular second molar maturation in assessing the mandibular growth peak using a longitudinal design. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From the files of the Burlington and Oregon growth studies, 40 subjects (20 from each collection, 20 males and 20 females) with at least seven annual lateral cephalograms taken from 9 to 16 years were included. Mandibular second molar maturation was assessed according to Demirjian et al., and mandibular growth was defined as annual increments of Co-Gn distance. A full diagnostic reliability analysis (including positive likelihood ratio) was performed to establish the diagnostic reliability of dental stages E, F, and (pooled) GH in identifying the imminent mandibular growth peak. RESULTS: None of the dental maturation stages reliably identified the mandibular growth peak with greatest overall mean accuracy and positive likelihood ratio of 0.77 (stage F) and 2.7 (stage E), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the mandibular second molar maturation is not recommended for planning treatment requiring identification of the mandibular growth peak.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".