Predisposing Factors to Formation of Cleft Lip and Palate: Inherited Craniofacial Skeletal Morphology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify inherited craniofacial morphologic features in individuals at high risk for cleft of the lip, cleft palate, or both. SUBJECTS: Twins without cleft from 33 pairs of monozygotic twins discordant for cleft lip, cleft palate, or both were studied. There were 17 males and 16 females of Caucasian origin, ranging from 3 to 18 years (15 with cleft lip and palate [CLP], 10 with cleft lip [CL], and 8 with cleft palate [CP]), collected from five craniofacial centers (United States and Canada). DESIGN: The twin without cleft (noncleft) from each set was compared with an age- and sex-matched control individual from the Burlington Growth Centre, Toronto, Ontario. Posteroanterior and lateral cephalograms were traced and digitized using a computer custom analysis. Descriptive statistics, Student's t tests, and analysis of variance were used to test 40 variables in a pilot study comparing the noncleft twin groups with the controls. Preliminary analysis permitted pooling of the CLP and CL groups (n = 25). To minimize false-positive significance, only 14 variables (from the maxillofacial area) were tested. RESULTS: Using the raw probabilities, eight variables showed significant differences between the pooled noncleft CLP and CL (CL[P]) twin group and the controls. However, when the level of significance was adjusted, only four (nasal width [p < .01], cranial base length [p < .05], cranial base width/length ratio [p < .001], and maxillary width/length ratio [p < .05]) were significantly different. No significant differences were confirmed between the noncleft CP twin group and the controls. CONCLUSIONS: The noncleft member of a discordant monozygotic pair has a number of facial characteristics that differ from the general population. These may predispose to the formation of a cleft lip or palate and may result from a deficiency or distortion of the mesenchyme that forms the craniofacial structures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".