Evaluación del crecimiento del maxilar y la mandíbula con cefalometría de Harvold en radiografías cefalométricas en contraste con la etapa de crecimiento puberal basada en el análisis de Fishman en radiografías carpales obtenidas del Burlington Growth Centre.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the correlation between maxillary and mandibular growth with Fishman's pubertal development of the hand-wrist to determine the appropriate age for orthopedic treatment. \nA sample of 40 patients was evaluated, each patient was evaluated at the ages of 9,12, 14 and 16 years, from the Burlintong Growth Center, of the University of Toronto Canada. Hand-wrist and cephalic radiographs were used to apply Harvold's cephalometric analysis and Fishman's carpal analysis. \nThe results showed the correlation between maxillary and mandibular growth with the bone maturation phases of the Fishman analysis. The growth of men in the maxilar (H: 12.5% and M: 9.02%) as in the mandible (H: 15.5% and M: 9.85%) is different than the women, being greater in the masculine sex. The female sex shows a precocious maturation and in a shorter time than the masculine. The phases of maturation of Fishman, it was found that phase 6 is where maxillary (H: 5.13% and M: 5.72) and mandibular (H: 5.90% and M: 5.07) have a greatest growth, appearing at 12 years in women and at 14 years in men.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".