MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051939543 · doi:10.2319/051009-250.1

Location and Presence of Permanent Teeth in a Complete Bilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Population

2010· article· en· W2051939543 on OpenAlexaffabout
Richard Michael Halpern, James M. Noble

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Angle Orthodontist · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCleft Lip and Palate Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaxillaMedicineAgenesisDentistryLateral incisorIncisorMolarCraniofacialOrthodonticsMaxillary central incisorMandible (arthropod mouthpart)Mandibular lateral incisorPopulationAnterior teethMandibular first molarAnatomyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To describe the location and presence of permanent teeth in nonsyndromic complete bilateral cleft lip and palate patients from the Manitoba Centre for Craniofacial Difference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records of 1570 patients dating back to 1958 were assessed in this retrospective chart review. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients met the inclusion criteria, providing 76 cleft site teeth: A tooth on each side of the cleft was considered to have developed from a single lateral incisor tooth bud. The pattern M was assigned when a tooth was found mesial to the cleft, D when distal, MD when mesial and distal and AB if none was found. Pattern M was noted 9.2% of the time; D, 47.4%; MD, 5.3%; and AB, 38.2%. Teeth outside the cleft site: In the maxilla, agenesis occurred in 11.9% of second premolars and 10.5% of central incisors. In the mandible, agenesis occurred in 4.0% of second premolars, 2.6% of lateral incisors, 2.6% of central incisors, and 2.6% of second molars. CONCLUSIONS: The lateral incisor was most commonly found distal to the cleft. Agenesis of the lateral incisor and teeth outside the cleft were more common than in noncleft populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations26
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Angle OrthodontistSame topicCleft Lip and Palate ResearchFrench-language works237,207