Applicability of Bolton anterior and overall ratios for the Canadian Filipino population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The purpose of this study was to determine the applicability of Wayne Bolton’s original anterior and overall ratios when evaluating inter-arch tooth size discrepancies for subjects of Filipino descent living in Canada. Methods: Overall and anterior Bolton ratios were calculated for 57 Filipino patients who had undergone non-extraction Invisalign treatment at private orthodontic clinics in Canada. All 57 patients had either finished treatment or were projected to finish with an ideal class I occlusion without any interproximal reduction according to their ClinCheck® simulation. To compute the Bolton ratios, mesiodistal tooth widths were digitally measured on virtual casts using OrthoCad® software. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the anterior or overall ratios calculated for the study sample and the original Bolton Ratios published in 1958(p=.808). Additionally, there were no significant differences when comparing females versus males on Bolton ratios(p>0.05). However, there was a moderately low reliability for Bolton anterior ratios given by ClinCheck® compared to anterior ratios calculated based on manual measurements by the primary investigator (ICC=.594). Conclusions: Wayne Bolton’s original overall and anterior ratios from 1958 are applicable when diagnosing inter-arch tooth-size discrepancies for Filipino-Canadian patients, regardless of gender. For better accuracy, anterior Bolton ratios should be calculated based on direct measurements of mesiodistal tooth widths rather than relying on tooth widths presented by ClinCheck®
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".