Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study is a thorough literature review of the clinical presentation and evaluation of developmental facial paralysis, with a systematic description of the various stigmata and associated anomalies. It is hoped that this approach will facilitate the differentiation of developmental facial paralysis from other causes of facial paralysis present at birth. METHODS: Forty-two cases of developmental facial paralysis were identified in a retrospective clinical review (1980 to 2010); 34 were children (80.95 percent; age, 8±6 years) and eight were adults (19.05 percent; age, 27±12 years). Thirty-one patients had simple developmental paralysis, and two patients had developmental unilateral lower lip palsy. There were nine patients with associated anomalies or craniofacial syndromes. Five of these patients had multiple cranial nerve deficits. RESULTS: Analysis of the various stigmata revealed significant correlation between the presence of developmental facial paralysis and amblyopia, hypoplastic facial nerve on imaging or surgical exploration, lower alar atresia, and skin changes (i.e., acne), but not the ear abnormalities. CONCLUSIONS: Early targeted screening and diagnosis, with prompt specialized treatment, improves the physical and emotional development of children with developmental facial paralysis and reduces the prevalence of amblyopia and other sequelae of the condition, thus facilitating reintegration among their peers. Given the dramatic presentation of this condition, accurate and reliable guidelines are necessary to facilitate early diagnosis, initiate appropriate therapy, and provide support and counseling to the family.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".