Aesthetic evaluation of lip position with respect to profile divergence: A silhouette based study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine the mean attractiveness and score of lip position that is rated by orthodontists and lay persons in different levels of profile divergence as seen in silhouette images. Study Design: Cross-sectional survey. Setting: Punjab Dental Hospital/de’Montmorency College of Dentistry, Lahore. Period: January 2020 to July 2020. Material & Methods: Lay people were selected from the hospital and orthodontic postgraduate trainees were selected from the college. An ideal profile image was constructed and converted to silhouette. By changing position of subnasale and soft tissue pogonion horizontally in relation to true vertical line, divergence of profile was changed and 3 forms of straight/normal profile were created. Three sets of profiles were created (1 anterior divergent, 2 straight divergent, 3 posterior divergent) and each set consisted of 5 images with different degrees of lip protrusion. Results: There were 50% of both genders in orthodontists and 48% males and 52% females in lay person with mean ages 28.74±2.55 and 34.66±7.30 years respectively were part of the study. There was significant difference found between orthodontists and lay person for anterior divergent profile with normal position (4.54±0.61 and 4.68±0.47 with P<0.05). Conclusion: The normal lip position is viewed as the most ideal position; however the same does not have any significant bearing to the straight divergent profile, in which the assessments of various groups were uncertain.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".