MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Facial attractiveness of skeletal class I and class II malocclusion as perceived by laypeople, patients and clinicians

2018· article· en· W2981592814 on OpenAlexaff
Michela Pace, Iacopo Cioffi, Vincenzo D’Antò, Alessandra Valletta, Rosa Valletta, Massimo Amato

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerva Dental and Oral Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttractivenessFacial attractivenessSagittal planeMedicineMalocclusionOrthodonticsDentistryPsychologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Physical attractiveness is dependent on facial appearance. The facial profile plays a crucial role in facial attractiveness and can be improved with orthodontic treatment. The aesthetic assessment of facial appearance may be influenced by the cultural background and education of the assessor and dependent upon the experience level of dental professionals. This study aimed to evaluate how the sagittal jaw relationship in Class I and Class II individuals affects facial attractiveness, and whether the assessor's professional education and background affect the perception of facial attractiveness. METHODS: Facial silhouettes simulating mandibular retrusion, maxillary protrusion, mandibular retrusion combined with maxillary protrusion, bimaxillary protrusion and severe bimaxillary protrusion in class I and class II patients were assessed by five groups of people with different backgrounds and education levels (i.e., 23 expert orthodontists, 21 orthodontists, 15 maxillofacial surgeons, 19 orthodontic patients and 28 laypeople). RESULTS: Straight facial profiles were judged to be more attractive than convex profiles due to severe mandibular retrusion and to mandibular retrusion combined with maxillary protrusion (all P<0.05). Convex profiles due to a slightly retruded position of the mandible were judged less attractive by clinicians than by patients and laypeople (all P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Convex facial profiles are less attractive than Class I profiles. The assessment of facial attractiveness is dependent on the assessor's education and background. Laypeople and patients are considerably less sensitive to abnormal sagittal jaw relationships than orthodontists.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMinerva Dental and Oral ScienceSame topicOrthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsFrench-language works237,207