MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W87163577

Mental distances and relationship to body mass index in young healthy Nigerian adults: a population based study.

2012· article· en· W87163577 on OpenAlexaff
B N Jaja, S Fyneface-Ogan

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBody mass indexMedicineDemographyPopulationInternal medicinePhysiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: This study was conducted to determine normal ranges of sterno-mental distance (SMD) and thyromental distance (TMD) and to examine the relationship of these measurements to each other and the body mass index (BMI). METHODS: The SMD, TMD and BMI were assessed in a total of 409 apparently healthy adult subjects comprising 218 male and 190 female participants who volunteered for the study. The parameters were measured by standard methods and the obtained data analysed for the degree of association using Pearson Correlation Statistics. RESULTS: Mean values of SMD and TMD were significantly higher in males than in females. The BMI was statistically same in both sexes. Sterno-mental distance correlated positively with TMD in both sexes (r = 0.86, p = 0.005) while BMI correlated negatively with SMD (r = -0.166, p = 0.108) as well as to the TMD (r = -0.147, p = 0.04) in both sexes. CONCLUSION: In young healthy adult populations the SMD and TMD are strongly related to each other but are unrelated to the BMI. Males tend to have on average longer SMD and TMD as compared to females. Our findings could be a useful tool during pre-anaesthetic airway assessment of 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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.259 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques→French-language works237,207→