Comparison of Facial Angular Measurements Between Males and Females Presenting at a Tertiary Care Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objective: The effectiveness of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning is dependent on an accurate assessment of the patient's soft tissue profile. The objective of the study was to compare the facial angular measurements between males and females.Methods: The study comprised 100 volunteers (50 males and 50 females) ranging in age from 12 to 16 years. The respondents were chosen through convenience sampling technique from orthodontics department of children hospital Lahore. Cephalometric and photographic profile analysis was used, with angular measurements based on standard cephalometric and photographic records taken in natural head position. The study included four factors in total.Results: The mean cephalometric and photographic naso-frontal angle was 121.050 and 121.030 respectively, where as cephalometric and phographic measurement in females were 122.240 and 122.840 respectively.Conclusion: There was no significant difference in angular measurements between two genders.Keywords: Photographic analysis, Cephalometric analysis, Naso-labial angle, Naso-mental angle, Naso- frontal angle, Naso-facial angle
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".