Evaluation of Pharyngeal Airway Volume Three-Dimensionally in Various Sagittal Skeletal Patterns - Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate the pharyngeal airway volume in different anteroposterior skeletal malocclusions. This study was prepared according to the Cochrane criteria for creating a systematic review and meta-analysis and confirms the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. This search was conducted to answer the patient/population, intervention, comparison and outcomes (PICO) question: To evaluate (outcome) and compare (comparison) whether there is a difference in airway volume in patients (participants) with different skeletal malocclusions diagnosed using 3D data (intervention).The first two authors extracted the data from the included studies and assessed the risk of bias in the individual studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Meta-analysis was done using STATA version 16, which compared various three-dimensional pharyngeal airway parameters in skeletal Class II and skeletal Class III malocclusions with that of skeletal class I malocclusion. Out of 370 articles from the initial search, 17 articles were included in the systematic review. Out of 17 studies, 12 eligible studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. The nasopharynx, oropharynx, hypopharynx, and total airway volume were increased in skeletal Class I malocclusion compared to that of skeletal Class II malocclusion and decreased in comparison to skeletal Class III malocclusion. The moderate quality of evidence indicates the total airway volume, oropharynx, and hypopharynx are largest in skeletal Class III compared to Class I and Class II skeletal malocclusion.
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 | 0.036 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".