Oral health-related quality of life in non-syndromic cleft lip and/or palate patients: a systematic review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
THE OBJECTIVE: To evaluate oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in non-syndromic patients with cleft lip and/or palate (CLP), in comparison to a general non-cleft population. BASIC RESEARCH DESIGN: Systematic review. A literature search was conducted to identify papers reporting on OHRQoL in cleft samples. Only studies with suitable control groups were included. From each included paper were extracted the study and sample characteristics and results. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: OHRQoL score. RESULTS: Three papers were chosen according to the preset inclusion and exclusion criteria. All used an OHRQoL generic patient-reported questionnaire with evidence of a development and validation process, with responses recorded on a five-point scale. The results could not be combined for the purposes of meta-analysis due to lack of standardisation. In 2 of the 3 studies, the OHRQoL was found to be significantly lower in the cleft than in the non-cleft samples (in patients 8-18 or 18-65 years of age). The third study, based on a relatively small sample size, could not detect significant differences between cleft and non-cleft individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of the few studies included in the present systematic review, non-syndromic patients with CLP tend to have a lower OHRQoL than a general non-cleft population. This seems to hold true both for children and adults.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".