Sex Differences in Adult Facial Three-Dimensional Morphology: Application to Gender-Affirming Facial Surgery
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Gender-affirming facial surgery (GFS) is pursued by transgender individuals who desire facial features that better reflect their gender identity. Currently, there are a few objective guidelines to justify and facilitate effective surgical decision making. Objective: To quantify the effect of sex on adult facial size and shape through an analysis of three-dimensional (3D) facial surface images. Materials and Methods: Facial measurements were obtained by registering an atlas facial surface to 3D surface scans of 545 males and 1028 females older than 20 years of age. The differences between male and female faces were analyzed and visualized for a set of predefined surgically relevant facial regions. Results: On average, male faces are 7.3% larger than female faces (Cohen's D = 2.17). Sex is associated with significant facial shape differences ( p < 0.0001) in the entire face as well as in each sub-region considered in this study. The facial regions in which sex has the largest effect on shape are the brow, jaw, nose, and cheek. Conclusions: These findings provide biologic data-driven anatomic guidance and justification for GFS, particularly forehead contouring cranioplasty, mandible and chin alterations, rhinoplasty, and cheek modifications.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it