Angular Photogrammetric Analysis of Nasiolabial and Mentolabial Angle in Pakistani Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The objective of the study was to determine the range of nasiolabial and mentolabial angles in normal Pakistani adult and to establish any sexual dimorphism if present. Method: Five hundred objects 500 were selected from the indoor of the de’Mont morency College of dentistry, Lahore. Written consent was obtained from all the participants and were guaranteed that secrecy of all the data was kept up. They were selected using following criteria 1)subjects aged between 18-30 years both males and females 2)skeletal class 1,2 and 3 using ANB of Stenier’s analysis with no or minor crowding, good facial asymmetry and full dentition irrespective of third molar. Gender wise difference was found using independent sample t test. Results: The results of Independent sample t test revealed that there was a significant gender wise difference with regards to nasiolabial (t= 3.827, P<.001) and mentolabial angle (t= -2.733, P<.007). Conclusion: The results showed wider nasiolabial angle in males while no significant difference in terms of skeletal classes. However, mentolabial angle was less in males than females and highest in class 3 than class 1 which was greater than class 2.The impact of sex was significant in both angles Keywords: Nasiolabial angel, Mentolabial angle, Sexual Dimorphism, Angular photogrammetric analysis
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".