Connecting the dots towards precision orthodontics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Precision orthodontics entails the use of personalized clinical, biological, social and environmental knowledge of each patient for deep individualized clinical phenotyping and diagnosis combined with the delivery of care using advanced customized devices, technologies and biologics. From its historical origins as a mechanotherapy and materials driven profession, the most recent advances in orthodontics in the past three decades have been propelled by technological innovations including volumetric and surface 3D imaging and printing, advances in software that facilitate the derivation of diagnostic details, enhanced personalization of treatment plans and fabrication of custom appliances. Still, the use of these diagnostic and therapeutic technologies is largely phenotype driven, focusing mainly on facial/skeletal morphology and tooth positions. Future advances in orthodontics will involve comprehensive understanding of an individual's biology through omics, a field of biology that involves large-scale rapid analyses of DNA, mRNA, proteins and other biological regulators from a cell, tissue or organism. Such understanding will define individual biological attributes that will impact diagnosis, treatment decisions, risk assessment and prognostics of therapy. Equally important are the advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning, and its applications in orthodontics. AI is already being used to perform validation of approaches for diagnostic purposes such as landmark identification, cephalometric tracings, diagnosis of pathologies and facial phenotyping from radiographs and/or photographs. Other areas for future discoveries and utilization of AI will include clinical decision support, precision orthodontics, payer decisions and risk prediction. The synergies between deep 3D phenotyping and advances in materials, omics and AI will propel the technological and omics era towards achieving the goal of delivering optimized and predictable precision orthodontics.
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 | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; 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".