Quality of life in patients with maxillectomy prostheses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This cross-sectional study sought to determine patient quality of life and function after prosthetic rehabilitation for maxillary and palate defects following cancer resection. METHODS: Sixty-nine patients were identified, 42 participated in the study (61%). The Obturator Functioning Scale (OFS) and 4 general quality of life measures (Mental Health Inventory [MHI], Impact of Events Scale [IES], Illness Intrusiveness Ratings Scale [IIRS], and Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale [CES-D]) were correlated with clinical parameters. RESULTS: Leakage when swallowing foods was the most frequently reported problem with the obturator (29%). Positive correlation was noted between the OFS and both the IES subscales (p < .01) and CES-D (p < .001). Difficulty with speech and eating was associated with increased avoidance of social situations. The surgical approach had a significant effect on the OFS, IES, and MHI subscales (p < .01). CONCLUSION: These results support the findings that good obturator function is associated with a better quality of life.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".