Critical Analysis of Consecutive Unilateral Cleft Lip Repairs: Determining Ideal Sample Size
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective : Cleft surgeons often show 10 consecutive lip repairs to reduce presentation bias, however the validity remains unknown. The purpose of this study is to determine the number of consecutive cases that represent average outcomes. Secondary objectives are to determine if outcomes correlate with cleft severity and to calculate interrater reliability. Design : Consecutive preoperative and 2-year postoperative photographs of the unilateral cleft lip-nose complex were randomized and evaluated by cleft surgeons. Parametric analysis was performed according to chronologic, consecutive order. The mean standard deviation over all raters enabled calculation of expected 95% confidence intervals around a mean tested for various sample sizes. Setting : Meeting of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association in 2009. Patients, Participants : Ten senior cleft surgeons evaluated 39 consecutive lip repairs. Main Outcome Measures : Preoperative severity and postoperative outcomes were evaluated using descriptive and quantitative scales. Results : Intraclass correlation coefficients for cleft severity and postoperative evaluations were 0.65 and 0.21, respectively. Outcomes did not correlate with cleft severity (P = .28). Calculations for 10 consecutive cases demonstrated wide 95% confidence intervals, spanning two points on both postoperative grading scales. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals narrowed within one qualitative grade (±0.30) and one point (±0.50) on the 10-point scale for 27 consecutive cases. Conclusions : Larger numbers of consecutive cases (n > 27) are increasingly representative of average results, but less practical in presentation format. Ten consecutive cases lack statistical support. Cleft surgeons showed low interrater reliability for postoperative assessments, which may reflect personal bias when evaluating another surgeon's results.
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 | 0.185 | 0.430 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".