The Americleft Study: An Inter-Center Study of Treatment Outcomes for Patients with Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Part 2. Dental Arch Relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare maxillomandibular relationships for individuals with nonsyndromic complete unilateral cleft lip and palate using the Goslon Yardstick for dental models. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Five cleft palate centers in North America. SUBJECTS: A total of 169 subjects with repaired complete unilateral cleft lip and palate who were consecutively treated at the five centers. METHODS: Ethics approval was obtained. A total of 169 dental models of patients between 6 and 12 years old with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate were assessed using the Goslon Yardstick. Weighted kappa statistics were used to assess intrarater and interrater reliabilities; whereas, analysis of variance and Tukey-Kramer analysis was used to compare the Goslon scores. Significance levels were set at p < .05. RESULTS: Intrarater and interrater reliabilities were very good for model ratings. One center that incorporated primary alveolar bone grafting showed especially poor Goslon scores that were significantly poorer than the remaining centers. The surgery protocols used by the other four centers did not include primary alveolar bone grafting but involved a number of different lip and palate closure techniques. Using the Goslon Yardstick assumptions, the center with the best scores would be expected to require end-stage maxillary advancement orthognathic surgery in 20% of its patients; whereas, the center with the worst scores would be likely to require this surgery in 66% of its patients. CONCLUSIONS: The Goslon Yardstick proved capable of discriminating among the centers' dental arch relationships. Possible explanations for the differences are discussed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".