MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390048753 · doi:10.46875/jmd.v13i1.818

Fatores externos e/ou ambientais que interferem no crescimento e desenvolvimento craniofacial

2023· article· pt· W4390048753 on OpenAlexaff
Larissa Luane Soder HENTZ, Weber Adriano Nogueira

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Multidisciplinary Dentistry · 2023
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCleft Lip and Palate Research
Canadian institutionsCytodiagnostics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCraniofacialHumanitiesArtBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

O crescimento e desenvolvimento das estruturas craniofaciais iniciam na fecundação e terminam apenas na morte do indivíduo. O crescimento se distingue pelo aumento de tamanho, forma e peso das estruturas corporais; o desenvolvimento é um conjunto de crescimento, diferenciação e especialização destas estruturas. Existem fatores associados ao crescimento e desenvolvimento craniofacial, desde a herança genética como também fatores externos e ambientais, que influenciam na qualidade e quantidade do crescimento tecidual. Avaliar fatores externos e/ou ambientais que influenciam e interferem no crescimento e desenvolvimento craniofacial do indivíduo, com uma visão ortodôntica. O processo de crescimento e desenvolvimento craniofacial está ligado a fatores externos e ambientais que influenciam na magnitude quantitativa e qualitativa dos tecidos. As causas externas mais comuns encontradas na literatura são o padrão respiratório, hábitos de sucção não nutritivos e hábitos de sucção nutritivos. As alterações mais comuns encontradas são uma mudança no direcionamento do crescimento mandibular, mordida aberta anterior, mordida cruzada posterior, presença de overjet, má oclusão Classe II, alteração na tonicidade muscular e no padrão respiratório. Os fatores externos e ambientais influenciam e interferem no crescimento e desenvolvimento craniofacial. O grau de severidade dessas alterações vai depender da frequência, intensidade e duração dos hábitos. O diagnóstico precoce é essencial. O trabalho multiprofissional favorece um melhor tratamento e prognóstico.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Multidisciplinary DentistrySame topicCleft Lip and Palate ResearchFrench-language works237,207