Development and preliminary validation of the Lip Reanimation Outcomes Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Lip paralysis is associated with eating, speaking, and appearance impairments. The lip reanimation outcome questionnaire is designed to assess these functional impairments after lip reanimation. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional validation study. SETTING: Tertiary care academic center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent lip reanimation and control subjects. A disease-specific instrument was created by systematic literature review and expert opinion. The 15-item patient completed subscale was administered to 20 lip reanimation patients. Photographs of 19 patients and three control subjects were taken in four poses and rated by six raters (2 surgeons, 2 residents, and 2 novices) by the use of a external rater subscale, and reliability was determined by the use of intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Content and construct validity were assessed. RESULTS: Internal consistency (ICC range 0.813-0.915 for each domain), test-retest reliability (ICC range 0.616-0.981 for each item) for the patient completed subscale, and interrater (ICC = 0.852) and interlevel reliability (ICC = 0.929) for the external rater subscale were substantial to excellent. The content validity index was 0.87. Construct validity was demonstrated by poorer scores in patients with transected nerves versus intact nerves for appearance (P = 0.04) and oral competence (P = 0.011). Photographs of control patients had lower asymmetry scores (P < 0.001), and the instrument detected greater asymmetry in patients with progressively more exaggerated smile (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The lip reanimation outcome questionnaire has promising reliability and validity in this preliminary study, but additional psychometric testing with larger samples is required before the survey can be recommended for clinical use.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".