ArticleAnatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007)2021
Bayesian approach to longitudinal craniofacial growth: The Craniofacial Growth Consortium Study.
Article in Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vertical Growth of Facial Soft Tissues: A Longitudinal Three-Dimensional Facial Growth Study.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2026Article
- Craniofacial growth percentile curves: A clinical tool from the Craniofacial Growth Consortium Study.American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2026Article
- Comparison of individualized facial growth prediction models using artificial intelligence and partial least squares based on the Mathews growth collection.The Angle orthodontist · 2025Article
- Analyzing Discrepancies and Correlations in Soft and Hard Tissue Asymmetry: A Focused Study on Hemifacial Microsomia and Isolated Microtia.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Article
- Exploring Progression and Differences in Facial Asymmetry for Hemifacial Microsomia and Isolated Microtia: Insights from Extensive 3D Analysis.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024Article
- Cone-Beam Computerized Tomography Evaluation of the Relationship between Orthodontic Vertical Direction Parameters and the Distance from the Apex of the Upper Central Tooth to the Nasal Floor and Anterior Nasal Spine.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2024Article
- Cross-sectional data accurately model longitudinal growth in the craniofacial skeleton.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Craniofacial growth and morphology among intersecting clinical categories.Anatomical record (Hoboken, N.J. : 2007) · 2022Article
- Estimating Craniofacial Growth Cessation: Comparison of Asymptote- and Rate-Based Methods.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2022Article
- Geometric morphometric analysis of growth patterns among facial types.American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Early in the 20th century, a series of studies were initiated across North America to investigate and characterize childhood growth. The Craniofacial Growth Consortium Study (CGCS) combines craniofacial records from six of those growth studies (15,407 lateral cephalograms from 1,913 individuals; 956 females, 957 males, primarily European descent). Standard cephalometric points collected from the six studies in the CGCS allows direct comparison of craniofacial growth patterns across six North American locations. Three assessors collected all cephalometric points and the coordinates were averaged for each point. Twelve measures were calculated from the averaged coordinates. We implemented a multilevel double logistic equation to estimate growth trajectories fitting each trait separately by sex. Using Bayesian inference, we fit three models for each trait with different random effects structures to compare differences in growth patterns among studies. The models successfully identified important growth milestones (e.g., age at peak growth velocity, age at cessation of growth) for most traits. In a small number of cases, these milestones could not be determined due to truncated age ranges for some studies and slow, steady growth in some measurements. Results demonstrate great similarity among the six growth studies regarding craniofacial growth milestone estimates and the overall shape of the growth curve. These similarities suggest minor variation among studies resulting from differences in protocol, sample, or possible geographic variation. The analyses presented support combining the studies into the CGCS without substantial concerns of bias. The CGCS, therefore, provides an unparalleled opportunity to examine craniofacial growth from childhood into adulthood.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.