MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2924262975 · doi:10.5539/jmbr.v9n1p33

Determining Gender and Age by Mandibular Anatomy Landmarks in Computed Tomography with Cone-Beam (CBCT)

2019· article· en· W2924262975 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nasim Shams, Mahshid Razavi, Azar Mehrabi, Sina Salehin, Parisa Sarikhani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Molecular Biology Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Radiography and Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental foramenCone beam computed tomographyMandibular canalInferior alveolar nerveComputed tomographyMedicineOrthodonticsMandible (arthropod mouthpart)Alveolar crestSignificant differenceDentistryMathematicsAnatomyRadiographyMolarDental alveolusRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: this study aimed at determining gender and age by mandibular anatomy landmarks in computed tomography with Cone-Beam (CBCT). Methodology: this cross sectional study was performed on 147 CBCT images available in archive of radiology in the dentistry department of Ahvaz Jondi Shapoor medical science university. In this research, we assessed parameters including SMEF: Distance from mental foramen to the highest point of alveolar crest ridge, BIAC: distance from lowest point of IAC to the most anterior tangent point of buccal mandibular plate, LIAC: distance from the lowest IAC point to the most posterior tangent point o mandibular lingual plate, IMEF: distance from the lowest mental hole border to the lowest tangent point on inferior mandibular border, D2: distance from the lowest IAC canal border to the lowest tangent point on inferior mandibular border and gonial angle: junction of inferior mandibular border and posterior ramus border. Data were analysed by SPSS software 20th version and Spearman correlation coefficient tests, one-way variance analysis, Kruskal-Wallis, independent t, and Uman Withney. Results: SMEF level was significantly different in groups and in 25-34 group it was significantly higher than under 25 group. In right side it was significantly higher than female. IMEF had no significant difference in age groups and in both side it was higher in male than female. BIAC in both sides had no significant difference. LIAC in both sides an in different ages had no significant difference in male and female. D2 had no significant difference in both sides. But in a group with patients older than 55 it was significantly higher than 45-54 group. In addition, in left side it was higher in male than female there was no significant difference in gonial angle in different groups in left side with in right side there was significant difference in different age groups. But there was no significant difference in gender. Conclusion: evaluated indices in this research are not ry accurate to forecast age and gender and they cannot be used as accurate tools in estimating age and gender of people.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Molecular Biology ResearchSame topicDental Radiography and ImagingFrench-language works237,207