MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7131361291 · doi:10.1097/scs.0000000000012156

Revisiting a Rare Cause of Plagiocephaly: Frontosphenoidal Craniosynostosis

2025· article· en· W7131361291 on OpenAlexaff
Trent Schimmel, Izza Sattar, Curtis Budden

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Craniofacial Surgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCraniofacial Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCraniosynostosisFibrous jointScalpFrontal boneRetrospective cohort studyMultidisciplinary team

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Frontosphenoidal craniosynostosis remains a rare cause of anterior plagiocephaly, with only 49 cases reported worldwide. Delayed diagnosis may lead to significant aesthetic and functional consequences. This case series presents 2 recently treated patients, highlighting clinical features, imaging findings, and surgical management. A retrospective review of 2 patients diagnosed and treated at our multidisciplinary head shape clinic was conducted, with parental consent obtained. Both children presented with unilateral brow flattening and preserved brow height. Imaging confirmed frontosphenoidal suture fusion with right frontal bone and supraorbital ridge flattening. Due to the severity of deformity, both underwent fronto-orbital advancement (FOAR) with the affected side bandeau and frontal bone removed, remodeled, and advanced to match the contralateral side. Both were discharged on postoperative day 4 with no complications and demonstrated marked cosmetic improvement. Multidisciplinary assessment and surgical intervention with FOAR led to improved aesthetic outcomes and avoided immediate functional deficits in our patients.

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)0.000
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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designCase report
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Craniofacial SurgerySame topicCraniofacial Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207