Individual age estimation using pulp-to-tooth area ratio in single-rooted teeth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dental age estimation can play a crucial role in forensic investigations as it can assist authorities in the identification of living and deceased individuals. Of the various age estimation methods based on odontology, pulp-to-tooth ratios measured through radiography have been a popular choice due to their less invasive nature. Pulp-to-tooth area ratios were assessed in 12 permanent single rooted teeth (maxillary and mandibular, left and right central incisors, lateral incisors, and canines) using clinical cone beam computed tomographs. A total of 227 teeth were analyzed from 66 subjects, 33 males and 33 females. Pulp-to-tooth area ratios were measured in the coronal, sagittal and axial perspectives. Additionally, the difference in pulp-to-tooth area ratio between the entire pulp cavity area of the tooth, and the pulp cavity area exclusively above the cementoenamel junction were compared. Bilateral symmetry was confirmed between the teeth from the right and left side (p = 0.9405). All correlations exceeded 0.6, with the highest correlations observed in maxillary teeth (R=-0.836), the teeth from females (R=-0.830), and central and lateral incisors exclusively (R=-0.802). The standard error of estimates from the linear regression models varied between ±10.11 and 14.98 years. This study confirmed that pulp-to-tooth ratios are a sound technique to estimate age.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; 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".