MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386030295 · doi:10.3390/diagnostics13162713

Prediction of Pubertal Mandibular Growth in Males with Class II Malocclusion by Utilizing Machine Learning

2023· article· en· W4386030295 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Grant Zakhar, Samir Hazime, George J. Eckert, Ariel Wong, Sarkhan Badirli, Hakan Türkkahraman

Bibliographic record

VenueDiagnostics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Radiography and Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TorontoFaculty of Dentistry, University of TorontoAmerican Association of Orthodontists Foundation
KeywordsMalocclusionOrthodonticsMathematicsRadiographyMandible (arthropod mouthpart)MedicineDentistryBiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this study was to create a novel machine learning (ML) model that 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 seven different ML models were trained using 38 data points obtained from 92 subjects. Thirty-one subjects were used as the test group to predict the 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 2.11–6.07 mm to 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 to 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. Although 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiagnosticsSame topicDental Radiography and ImagingFrench-language works237,207