MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032989612

Auditory Brainstem Responses in Newborns With Complete Cleft Palate and Lip at a Japanese Perinatal Center

2014· article· en· W2032989612 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Masahiko Katô, Mieko Sato, Shunji Suzuki

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Clinical Pediatrics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCleft Lip and Palate Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAudiologyHearing lossConductive hearing lossAuditory brainstem responseBrainstemDentistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Children with cleft palate sometimes suffer from abnormalities in any part of the ear, especially from the middle ear. It is important to identify hearing loss early by monitoring their auditory sensitivity on a regular basis, in order to minimize complications of abnormal or fluctuating hearing on speech development in patients with cleft palate. Methods: We examined auditory brainstem responses (ABRs) in 13 Japanese newborns with complete cleft palate and lip at 4.1 ± 2.2 days after delivery compared with sex-, age- and weight-matched 13 Japanese newborns without cleft palate or lip as control. Results: Wave I component latency (CL) was longer in ABRs of infants with complete cleft palate and lip than control newborns, while waves III and V CLs and the wave I-V interpeak latency (IPL) were not different. Conclusions: The current results indicate the presence of congenital conductive hearing disturbance in newborns with complete cleft palate and lip. Int J Clin Pediatr. 2014;3(3):86-88 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/ijcp168w

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Clinical PediatricsSame topicCleft Lip and Palate ResearchFrench-language works237,207