A retrospective study of incidental findings occurring in a consecutive case series of lateral cephalograms of 12- to 20-year-old patients referred for routine orthodontic treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Lateral cephalograms of orthodontic patients may contain incidental findings that could potentially lead to harm. Materials and Methods: The lateral cephalograms of 1765 consecutive 12- to 20-year-old patients, being considered for routine orthodontic treatment, were retrospectively reviewed. These patients were considered normal, because no abnormalities were found either in their medical history or on their clinical examination. Results: The overall prevalence of incidental findings was 18.8%, of which 10.3% were ponticulus posticus and 4.2% were bridging of the sella turcica. Although occipital spurs and ponticulus posticus were more prevalent in males, the size of the sella turcicas did not differ between sexes. Of the 1156 patients completing treatment about 2 years later, only one lateral cephalogram displayed progression of the ponticulus posticus in that time. Conclusion: The prevalence of incidental findings on lateral cephalograms of otherwise normal orthodontic 12- to 20-year-old patients was almost a fifth, of which ponticulus posticus, vertebral fusion, and enlarged parietal foramina were clinically significant.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".