Photogrammetric Analysis of Orolabial Region in South Indians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In lip reconstructive surgery, knowledge of orolabial dimensions and position according to ethnicity, age, and gender are important to obtain satisfactory results. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of information related to these values in South Indians. The objective of the present study was to quantify the orolabial dimensions and position in South Indians. Evaluation of orolabial features was performed on standardized frontal and lateral of 400 South Indian subjects (200 males and 200 females), aged 18 to 30 years. The measured parameters were evaluated by an independent t-test. Significant sexual dimorphism was found in 12 of 13 measurements. Except upper lip reference to E plane, all other linear measurements such as mouth width, philtrum width, lower lip reference to E plane, upper lip height, cutaneous upper lip, upper and lower vermilion height, cutaneous lower lip height, lower lip height, and labiotragial distance were significantly greater in males than females. Angular measurements, interlabial angle, and labiomental angle were significantly greater in females. Clinically significant sexual dimorphism existed for mouth width, labiotragial distance, interlabial angle, and labiomental angle (mean difference > 3 mm). Out of the four orolabial indices, only intercanthal/mouth width indices showed a significant sexual difference. In both sexes, the triangular shape of philtral column was most common. Comparative analysis between South Indians and North American whites revealed significant differences in all measurements and some resemblance to the Han Chinese. The knowledge of the obtained mean values might be useful in the maintenance of the functional and aesthetic quality of this region during surgical planning.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".