Glabellar vertical line as a reference goal for anteroposterior maxillary position
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of glabellar vertical line (GVL) as the anteroposterior maxillary position goal. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted assessing 129 participants (20.21 ± 1.99 years): 67 women (20.16 ± 1.99 years), and 62 males (20.26 ± 2.06 years). The facial profile photographs were taken with a posed smile in natural head position. The linear distance from the most facial convexity of the upper central incisor (FA) to the goal anterior-limit line (GALL) and also from FA to GVL were measured and compared. Wilcoxon signed-ranks test was applied. To determine the correlation between the distances, Spearman's correlation coefficient was used. Simple and multiple linear regression were also performed. RESULTS: The GALL-GVL separation was 0.54 ± 1.14 mm (95%CI: 0.34-0.74). A strong correlation between FA-GALL and FA-GVL distances (Spearman's rho=0.983 [95%CI: 0.976-0.988], p< 0.01) was identified. The FA-GVL distance explains almost all the total variation of FA-GALL (R2=95.84%, p< 0.01). The FA-GALL distance can be predicted by using the formula: FA-GALL=0.5+0.9*(FA-GVL). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that GVL could be used as an easier-to-use treatment goal to determine the maxillary anteroposterior position, compared to GALL, to improve facial harmony profile goals in cases where the maxillary incisors are properly positioned anteroposteriorly.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".