A Three-Dimensional Statistical Average Skull
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The utilization of three-dimensional modeling technology in craniomaxillofacial surgery has grown exponentially during the last decade. Future development, however, is hindered by the lack of a normative three-dimensional anatomic dataset and a statistical mean three-dimensional virtual model. The purpose of this study is to develop and validate a protocol to generate a statistical three-dimensional virtual model based on a normative dataset of adult skulls. METHOD: Two hundred adult skull CT images were reviewed. The average three-dimensional skull was computed by processing each CT image in the series using thin-plate spline geometric morphometric protocol. Our statistical average three-dimensional skull was validated by reconstructing patient-specific topography in cranial defects. The experiment was repeated 4 times. In each case, computer-generated cranioplasties were compared directly to the original intact skull. The errors describing the difference between the prediction and the original were calculated. RESULTS: A normative database of 33 adult human skulls was collected. Using 21 anthropometric landmark points, a protocol for three-dimensional skull landmarking and data reduction was developed and a statistical average three-dimensional skull was generated. Our results show the root mean square error (RMSE) for restoration of a known defect using the native best match skull, our statistical average skull, and worst match skull was 0.58, 0.74, and 4.4 mm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to statistically average craniofacial surface topography will be a valuable instrument for deriving missing anatomy in complex craniofacial defects and deficiencies as well as in evaluating morphologic results of surgery.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 it