oxycephaly

Defining contour evidence

Record whether the vault is described or demonstrated as conical or pointed, retaining the observer and evidence.

1. What observed feature supports calling this cranial vault pointed or conical? definition
2. Which examination, image or report documents that feature, and at what age? provenance

Source-specific term mapping

Preserve each source's definition and distinguish an explicit equivalence from an inferred mapping.

1. Does this source use oxycephaly interchangeably with acrocephaly or turricephaly, or distinguish them? definition
2. Would a tall but rounded vault meet this source's criteria? boundary

Reproducible shape description

Retain views, landmarks and measurement methods so observations can be compared.

1. Which views and landmarks demonstrate the location and extent of the pointed contour? measurement
2. Do the recorded dimensions describe cranial height, breadth, length or circumference, and which reference was used? measurement

Dated contour trajectory

Distinguish first recognition, subsequent progression and treatment-related changes.

1. When was the pointed contour first documented, and what earlier observations are available? provenance
2. Were changes observed during growth or after a cranial procedure, using comparable methods? measurement

Fusion pattern confidence

Retain named sutures, laterality where applicable, assessment method and uncertainty.

1. Which sutures were assessed, and what evidence supports the reported state of each? provenance
2. Is craniosynostosis documented independently, or merely inferred from the oxycephaly label? boundary

Associated diagnosis status

Link relevant assessments and distinguish confirmed diagnoses from differentials or incomplete evaluation.

1. What associated findings prompted a syndromic assessment, and what conclusion was documented? provenance
2. Does 'isolated' reflect a completed assessment or only the absence of additional information? boundary

Documented functional concerns

Represent each concern with its assessment date, evidence and attribution status; missing assessment is not a normal result.

1. What pressure-related, ophthalmic or developmental concerns have actually been assessed, and with what results? provenance
2. Which findings are clinically attributed to the cranial condition, and which remain unexplained or independently diagnosed? boundary

Evidence-linked next action

Record the responsible clinician's plan, outstanding evidence and specified reassessment criteria.

1. What specialist review or follow-up has been recommended, by whom, and for which documented finding? action
2. What missing evidence prevents a firmer classification or management decision? action
3. What changes does the existing clinical plan identify as requiring earlier reassessment? action

Check these first

Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.

1. Which of these check these first hold for the sense of oxycephaly this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance

Identifiers and schemes

Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.

1. Which of these identifiers and schemes hold for the sense of oxycephaly this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance

Real-world use

Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.

1. Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of oxycephaly this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance

Failure modes and hazards

Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.

1. Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of oxycephaly this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance

Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart

Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.

1. Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of oxycephaly this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance