Posterior cranial base natural growth and development: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide a synthesis of the published studies evaluating the natural growth and development of the human posterior cranial base (S-Ba). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The search was performed on MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and all EBM Reviews electronic databases. In addition, reference lists of the included studies were hand-searched. Articles were included if they analyzed posterior cranial-base growth in humans specifically. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were completed in duplicate. A meta-analysis was not justified. RESULTS: Finally, 23 published studies were selected: 5 cross-sectional and 18 cohort studies. Articles were published between 1955 and 2015, and all were published in English. The sample sizes varied between 20 and 397 individuals and consisted of craniofacial measurements from either living or deceased human skulls. Validity of the measurements was not determined in any of the studies, while six papers reported some form of reliability assessment. All the articles included multiple time points within the same population or data from multiple age groups. Growth of S-Ba was generally agreed to be from spheno-occipital synchondrosis growth. Basion displaced downward and backward and sella turcica moved downward and backward during craniofacial growth. Timing of cessation of S-Ba growth was not conclusive due to limited identified evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests that S-Ba is not totally stable, as its dimensions change throughout craniofacial growth and a minor dimensional change is observed even in late adulthood.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".