Facial and Cephalometric Features of Individuals With Mucopolysaccharidosis: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The aim was to assess craniofacial features through facial anthropometric and lateral cephalometry measurements of individuals with mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS) and compare them with individuals without MPS. Design Cross-sectional study. Patients A total of 14 individuals with MPS and 28 non-MPS age- and sex-matched were enrolled in this study. Methods A clinical facial analysis to evaluate the soft tissues and cephalometric analysis that comprised linear and angular measurements were performed. The calculation of the method error suggested no systematic errors ( p > .05). Random errors for linear and angular measurements were low (less than 0.5° and 1.6 mm). Chi-square test and independent t-test were performed. Results Most individuals with MPS were dolichofacial, presented altered facial proportions with an increased anterior lower facial height (ALFH) and lip incompetence (all p < .05), when compared with non-MPS individuals. Six angular measurements (1s.Na, 1s.NB, FMA, IMPA, AFI, and Po.Or_Go.Me; all p < .05) were significantly increased among individuals with MPS, and two (1s.1i and Ba.N-Ptm.Gn, all p < .05) were significantly decreased among them. Four linear measurements were significantly increased among individuals with MPS (1s-NA, 1i-NB, S-UL, and S-LL; all p < .05) and five (PogN-Perp, Co-A, Co-Gn, Nfa-Nfp, and overbite; all p < .05) were significantly decreased among them. Conclusion In summary, most individuals with MPS were dolichofacial with increased ALFH. Proclined upper and lower incisors, reduced nasopharyngeal space, and reduced overbite was also noted.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".