Reliability of three-dimensional anterior cranial base superimposition methods for assessment of overall hard tissue changes: A systematic review
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
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesize the available literature concerning the reliability of three-dimensional superimposition methods when assessing changes in craniofacial hard tissues. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four electronic databases were searched. Two authors independently reviewed potentially relevant articles for eligibility. Clinical trials, cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies that evaluated the reliability of three-dimensional superimposition methods on the anterior cranial base were included. RESULTS: Six studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Four studies used the voxel-based registration method, one used the landmark-based method and one used the surface-based method. Regarding reliability, the voxel-based studies showed on average a difference of 0.5 mm or less between images. The optimized analysis using a six-point correction algorithm in the landmark-based method showed 1.24 mm magnitude of error between images. CONCLUSIONS: Although reliability appears to be adequate, the small sample size and high risk of bias among studies make available evidence still insufficient to draw strong conclusions.
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 | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 it