Montreal Childrenʼs Hospital Formula for Nasoalveolar Molding Cleft Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For cleft teams that use nasoalveolar molding for presurgical treatment of cleft lips, the determination of desired cleft-nasal height correction is a subjective assessment. The latter, however, is complicated by a noncleft nasal height that itself is depressed by the shifted nasal pyramid native to the deformity. The authors introduce a simple formula based on the Pythagorean theorem to estimate the corrected height of the nose as an objective guide for the endpoint of nasoalveolar molding therapy. METHODS: Nasal impressions of 20 consecutive patients with unilateral cleft lips who underwent nasoalveolar molding therapy were analyzed. Using identified landmarks on pre-nasoalveolar molding impressions, the Montreal Children's Hospital formula was used to estimate the corrected height of the noncleft nostril (ideal corrected nasal height) as measured on the impressions after nasoalveolar molding therapy had verticalized the nasal pyramid. Statistical analysis was performed using the Pearson correlation test to determine the predictive value of the formula. RESULTS: Twenty patients were included in the study. Analysis demonstrated a statistically significant positive correlation (high degree) between predicted nasal heights (ideal corrected nasal height) and those measured following completion of nasoalveolar molding therapy (r = 0.760, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The Montreal Children's Hospital formula may serve as a useful tool to predict the corrected nasal height (ideal corrected nasal height) as a benchmark for cleft side nasal correction with nasoalveolar molding. The authors hope it will provide cleft teams, especially those beginning to use nasoalveolar molding, with an objective measure to guide nasoalveolar molding treatment.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".