Public Perception of a Normal Head Shape in Children With Sagittal Craniosynostosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
: A question that remains unanswered is at what level of surgical correction does the public perceive a head shape to be "normal" or "acceptable?" For most cases of non-syndromic asymptomatic craniosynostosis, the parents desire for surgical correction is to improve the cosmetic appearance of head shape. At the time of this writing, the intraoperative surgeons' perspective of what constitutes an acceptable head shape is the target for surgical correction. In introducing an improved objectively cosmetic goal, an appropriate outcome measure would be to assess what the general public considers a normal or acceptable head shape in children with craniosynostosis. METHOD: Twenty-two unique images were presented via an online crowdsourcing survey of a severe case of non-syndromic sagittal craniosynosis gradually corrected to an age and gender matched normalized head shape. Participants were recruited via the Sick Kids Twitter account. Participants were invited to rate the head shapes as "normal" or "abnormal." RESULTS: The 538 participants completed the online survey. Participants were able to reliably and consistently identify normal and abnormal head shapes with a Kappa Score >0.775. Furthermore, participants indicated that a correction of 70% is required in order for the cranial deformity to be regarded as "normal." This threshold closely reflects a normal Cranial Index, which is a widely used morphometric outcome in craniosynostosis. CONCLUSION: Crowdsourcing provides an ideal method for capturing the general population's perspective on what constitutes a normal and acceptable head shape in children with sagittal craniosynostosis. Laypersons are able to reliably and consistently distinguish cranial deformities from a "normal" head shape. The public indicates a threshold correction of 70% in sagittal craniosynosis to regard it as a "normal" head shape.
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".