Cranioorbital Morphology Caused by Coronal Ring Suture Synostosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Minor cranial sutural synostosis is currently regarded as a rare diagnosis. As clinical awareness grows, a greater number of cases are being documented. This study aims to describe the variants of unicoronal synostosis with regard to major and minor sutural involvement and secondary effects on cranial and orbital morphology. The information is aimed to improve clinical diagnosis and management. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted collecting preoperative computed tomographic scans of patients diagnosed with unicoronal synostosis and listed for surgical interventions, identified from a craniofacial database. Within these patients, different synostotic variants were identified based on which suture was affected. Scans of normal pediatric skulls (trauma) were used for a control group. Computed tomographic scans were analyzed for sutural involvement, cranial base deflection, and ipsilateral and contralateral orbital height and width. One-way analysis of variance was used to detect differences between synostotic variants and controls. RESULTS: A total of 57 preoperative computed tomographic scans of patients with unicoronal synostosis were reviewed, in addition to 18 computed tomographic scans of normal skulls (control group). Four variants of unicoronal synostosis were identified: frontoparietal, frontosphenoidal, frontoparietal and frontosphenoidal, and frontosphenoidal and frontoparietal. The last two variants differ in their temporal involvement in the direction of sutural synostosis and ultimately cranial and orbital morphology. Three variants have been previously identified, but the fourth is presented for the first time. CONCLUSIONS: An understanding of the variants of unicoronal synostosis and their temporal relationships is integral for accurate clinical diagnosis and surgical correction. Recommendations for treatment are based on discrete changes in orbital morphology.
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) | 0.000 | 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".