Neurofibromatosis and velopharyngeal insufficiency: is there an association?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) is an often underrecognized disorder of palatal and nasopharyngeal closure that leads to the production of hypernasal speech. However, the potential clinical association between VPI and neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) remains undefined in the literature. The purpose of this study sought to identify and describe the potential clinical association of VPI in NF1 patients. DESIGN: A combined retrospective and prospective study. SETTING: Tertiary referral centre. METHODS: The NF1 database from 1998 to 2007 from the Medical Genetics Unit of our institution was used for this project. All NF1 patients seen during this period were sent a letter soliciting their participation in the study, which was designed to screen for the presence of VPI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Perceptual testing was undertaken using the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association (ACPA) clinical database form and acoustic measurement of nasal flow, including standard nasometry and nasalance scores. A comprehensive chart review was also performed. RESULTS: One hundred forty-nine NF1 patients were identified from the database; 18 patients responded to our request for participation, with 3 additional participants recruited from recent clinical visits. Eleven of these 21 patients exhibited VPI based on perceptual evaluation and nasometry screening. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study attempted to identify a potential association between NF1 and VPI. Although this sample of NF1 patients was small, the finding of 11 of 21 patients being positively identified with some degree of VPI is of clinical interest, and further research is warranted.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".