Prediction of Pubertal Mandibular Growth in Males with Class II Malocclusion by Utilizing Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal was to create a novel machine learning (ML) model which can predict the magnitude and direction of pubertal mandibular growth in males with Class II malocclusion. Lateral cephalometric radiographs of 123 males at three time points (T1: 12, T2: 14, T3: 16 years old) were collected from an online database of longitudinal growth studies. Each radiograph was traced, and 7 different ML models were trained using 38 data points obtained from 92 subjects. 31 subjects were used as a test group, to predict post-pubertal mandibular length and Y-axis using input data from T1 and T2 combined (2-year prediction), and T1 alone (4-year prediction). Mean absolute errors (MAEs) were used to evaluate the accuracy of each model. For all ML methods tested using the 2-year prediction, the MAEs for post-pubertal mandibular length ranged from 2.11-6.07mm and 0.85-2.74° for the Y-axis. For all ML methods tested with 4-year prediction, the MAEs for post-pubertal mandibular length ranged from 2.32-5.28 mm and 1.25-1.72° for the Y-axis. Besides its initial length, the most predictive factors for mandibular length were found to be chronological age, upper and lower face heights, upper and lower incisor positions and inclinations. For the Y-axis, the most predictive factors were found to be Y-axis at earlier time points, SN-MP, SN-Pog, SNB and SNA. Whilst the potential of ML techniques to accurately forecast future mandibular growth in Class II cases is promising, a requirement for more substantial sample sizes exists to further enhance the precision of these predictions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".