MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110976867 · doi:10.1111/ocr.12454

The relation of cephalometric features to internal derangements of the temporomandibular joint: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of observational studies

2020· review· en· W3110976867 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chang Shu, Xin Xiong, Liwei Huang, Yang Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthodontics and Craniofacial Research · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicTemporomandibular Joint Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCraniofacialTemporomandibular jointMedicineMeta-analysisObservational studyMandible (arthropod mouthpart)DentistryCephalometric analysisOrthodonticsCephalometryStatistical analysisInternal medicineMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To review and summarize the data on the relationship between craniofacial morphology features and internal derangement (ID) of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). METHOD: A systematic review was designed and registered at PROSPERO, CRD42019132731. The PubMed, Embase and Scopus databases were searched for cephalometric studies comparing craniofacial morphology between female patients with TMJ ID and controls. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used for quality assessment. Weighted mean differences for cephalometric measurements were pooled for subsequent meta-analysis. RESULT: From the establishment date to August 2020, 14 of 1038 collected records were selected, which consisted of 772 patients with TMJ ID and 423 controls. These records were eventually pooled for the designed statistical analysis after the NOS quality assessment. Compared with the controls, TMJ ID patients had obviously smaller, retruded and clockwise-rotated mandible, showing significantly decreased S-Na, S-Go, Go-Me, Ar-Pog, Ar-Go, SNB, Na perp Pog, and increased FH-MP, SN-MP, PP-MP, SN to Ar-Go, S-Ar-Go and ANB. CONCLUSION: Certain craniofacial morphology features were found strongly associated with the presence of TMJ ID, especially the size and position of the mandible.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.764
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.531
GPT teacher head0.567
Teacher spread0.036 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthodontics and Craniofacial ResearchSame topicTemporomandibular Joint DisordersFrench-language works237,207