MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907935074 · doi:10.26575/daj.v23i1.66

Demirjian Stage Tooth Formation Results from a Large Group of Children

2018· article· en· W2907935074 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Helen M. Liversidge

Bibliographic record

VenueDental Anthropology Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPercentileConfidence intervalLogistic regressionStage (stratigraphy)DentistryPermanent toothMedicineAge groupsMaturity (psychological)DemographyStandard errorPermanent teethOrthodonticsStatisticsMathematicsBiologyPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study is to present further data on the timing and variation of individual permanent mandibular teeth using Demirjian stages from a large collaboration. Seven mandibular permanent teeth were assessed from dental radiographs of healthy dental patients from Australia, Belgium, Canada, England, Finland, France, South Korea and Sweden (cross-sectional study; n = 9,371, 4,710 males, 4,661 females; aged 2–18). Data are presented in three ways, namely by tooth stage for males, females, and pooled sex. Mean age at entry of each tooth formation stage (maturity data) was calculated using logistic regression and modified for age prediction. The 51% confidence interval for age within stage of individual tooth stages was calculated for use in forensic age estimation where the burden of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Average age, standard deviation, standard error, 3rd and 97th percentile within tooth stage was calculated from a uniform age sample (171 for each year of age from 3 to 16, n = 2,394). Modified maturity data and average age within stage from the uniform age distribution are two new methods of age estimation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDental Anthropology JournalSame topicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesFrench-language works237,207