Assessing the Effectiveness of Massage Therapy for Bilateral Cleft Lip Reconstruction Scars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Bilateral cleft lips occur when the bones that form the upper lip fail to fuse at birth. Surgical reconstruction creates scars, which may lead to the following impairments: adhesions, decreased oral range of motion, decreased strength of orbicularis oris muscle, and asymmetry of oral region leading to poor self-esteem. The purpose of this case study is to determine the effectiveness of massage therapy in its ability to improve these impairments. METHODS: A five-week treatment plan consisting of fascial release, kneading, and intraoral techniques. Subjective information was assessed on two scales: restriction of scar and clients attitudes and acceptance of scar. Objective information was cataloged through photographs, a palpatory chart, and a self-created "Pen Test". RESULTS: Results included increase range of motion and strength, decrease restrictions (palpable and subjective), and increase of symmetry. Client's perceived confidence of scar and its appearance increased. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that massage therapy helped with the impairments associated with scars formed by bilateral cleft lip reconstruction.
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 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 | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".