Commentary on: The Impact of Facial Asymmetry on the Surgical Outcome of Crooked Nose: A Case Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is with great pleasure that I discuss “The Impact of Facial Asymmetry on the Surgical Outcome of Crooked Nose: A Case Control Study” by Dasdar et al.1 In this article, the authors examine the impact of facial asymmetry on patients’ postoperative satisfaction with correction of their crooked nose. They studied the relation between visual perception of facial asymmetry and anthropometric measurements. Anthropometric characteristics of the face were evaluated from facial soft tissue landmarks. Pre- and postoperative nasal deviation angles were calculated from frontal view photographs. Patients’ satisfaction with surgery outcomes was assessed with the Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey (SCHNOS). Sixty-three patients met inclusion criteria and were divided into 2 groups: symmetric (22 patients, 34.9%) and asymmetric (41 patients, 65.1%) faces. Additionally, the shape of crookedness of the nose in each group was divided into 2 subgroups: I-type (19 patients, 30.2%) and C-type (44 patients, 69.8%)....
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".