An investigation on facial and cranial anthropometric parameters among Isfahan Young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Statement of Problem: Anthropometry is applied in medical professions such as maxillofacial surgery,"ngrowth and development studies, plastic surgery, bioengineering and non- medical branches such as like"nshoe- making and eye- glasses industries."nAim: The aim of the present study was to determine facial and cranial ratios among Isfahan young"nadults."nMaterials and Methods: A study was done randomly on 200 boys and 200 girls, from among Isfahan"nyoung adults, with normal face patterns. Facial and cranial ratios, according to sex, were estimated and"ncompared."nResults: The results of this study were compared with Canadian anthropometric findings by Farkas."nThere was no significant difference in cranial width between boys and girls but cranial length and all"nfacial parameters (Int ,cant, go-go, zy- zy, ch-ch, Ala-Ala, low.lip, Up.Iip, Sn.gn, Sto.gn, N.sto, Ngn)"nwere greater in boys than girls. Cranial index and , , " ,Cl ratios were greater in"nn - gn zy - zy zy - zy zy - zy"n... slo-go sn-gn sto-gn slo-gn sto-gn . . ._"ngirls, however, -, -, , , were greater in boys, There was no significant"ngo-go n- gn n- gn n- sto sn - gn"ndifference about facial index between boys and girls. Comparing facial parameters between Iranian and Canadian races, low. lip, Ala-Ala and go- go were greater among Iranians, however, Int cant ,Up. lip. N.gn, ch- ch, zy-zy showed a greater size among Canadians. Sn-gn ratio was greater in Canadian girls, but there was no significant difference between Iranian and Canadian boys in this"nregard. " " s" , s° " 8° , " ~ s ° , g° " 8° , ^-- ratios were greater among Isfahanian boys and girls,"nzy-zy zy-zy zy-zy n - gn zy-zy"nhowever, J ° ~ g" , 5 ° " 8" / ° " s" ratios were greater among Canadians. Regarding 5"~g" ratio, no"nn- sto sn- gn n~ gn n- gn"nsignificant difference was observed between Canadian and Isfahanian girls."nConclusion: Considering the significant difference in the facial and cranial anthropologic ratios and"nsizes, among Canadian and Isfahanian young adults, the results obtained from Canadian race, should not"nbe applied as a criteria for Iranian surgical and dental treatment plans. Due to the wide racial"ncombinations in Iran, more studies, with wider variations, should be conducted among different Iranian"nraces.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".