A Study on Sex Estimation by Using Machine Learning Algorithms with Parameters Obtained from Computerized Tomography Images of the Cranium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim of this study is to test whether sex prediction can be made by using machine learning algorithms (ML) with parameters taken from computerized tomography (CT) images of cranium and mandible skeleton which are known to be dimorphic. CT images of the cranium skeletons of 150 men and 150 women were included in the study. 25 parameters determined were tested with different ML algorithms. Accuracy (Acc), Specificity (Spe), Sensitivity (Sen), F1 score (F1), Matthews correlation coefficient (Mcc) values were included as performance criteria and Minitab 17 package program was used in descriptive statistical analyses. p ≤ 0.05 value was considered as statistically significant. In ML algorithms, the highest prediction was found with 0.90 Acc, 0.80 Mcc, 0.90 Spe, 0.90 Sen, 0.90 F1 values as a result of LR algorithms. As a result of confusion matrix, it was found that 27 of 30 males and 27 of 30 females were predicted correctly. Acc ratios of other MLs were found to be between 0.81 and 0.88. It has been concluded that the LR algorithm to be applied to the parameters obtained from CT images of the cranium skeleton will predict sex with high accuracy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".