Timing of Peak Mandibular Growth in Different Facial Growth Patterns and Resultant Mandibular Projection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine if significant differences exist in timings and rates of Peak Mandibular Growth (PMG) and mandibular projections of subjects with vertical, average and horizontal facial growth patterns. \nMethods: Sixty-three Caucasian orthognathic subjects with cephalograms (9 to 18 years) available from the Burlington Growth Centre were categorized into average, vertical and horizontal growth pattern groups based on their change in Y axis from age 10 to 16 years. PMG timing and rates were determined and mandibular projections measured. Comparisons were made by ANOVA. \nResults: Inter-group differences of PMG timing or rate were not statistically significant. Although not statistically significant, PMG of vertically growing females was 14 month earlier than all other subgroups. Horizontal mandibular projection differences approached significance in older children. \nConclusions: No statistically significant differences were found in the timing or rate of PMG in different facial growth patterns. Differences in horizontal mandibular projections approached significance with growth.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".