Prevalence and extension of the anterior loop of the mental nerve in different populations and CBCT imaging settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to identify the prevalence and extension of the anterior loop (AL) of the mental nerve in different populations and according to different cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) imaging settings. Materials and Methods: Medline/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest were searched. The main inclusion criterion was ALs evaluated in CBCT images. The quality of studies was assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute risk of bias checklist. Subgroup analyses were conducted for sex, side, continent, voxel size, field of view, and type of CBCT-reconstruction images with a random-effects model. Results: <0.05) in females. Significant differences were observed regarding the prevalence and length of ALs among continents and for its measured length on different CBCT-reconstruction images, but not between other subgroups. Conclusion: AL was a relatively common finding. The voxel size and fields of view of CBCT devices were adequate for assessing AL; however, a 2-mm safety margin from anatomical structures (such as the AL) could be recommended to be considered when using CBCT imaging.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".