The Presentation and Management of Laryngeal Cleft
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the presentation and associated congenital abnormalities of laryngeal cleft and present guidelines for its evaluation and management. DESIGN: A 10-year retrospective study (1994-2004) with institutional review board approval. SETTING: Two pediatric tertiary care medical centers. PATIENTS: Twenty-two pediatric patients (mean age, 21 months) with laryngeal cleft. INTERVENTION: Surgical repair of laryngeal cleft. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sex, age, symptoms, other associated abnormalities, method of evaluation, type of laryngeal cleft, method of surgical repair, treatment outcome, complications, and long-term follow-up. RESULTS: All 22 patients underwent surgical repair for laryngeal cleft. Airway endoscopy confirmed the following types of laryngeal clefts: type 1 (n = 3), type 2 (n = 10), and type 3 (n = 9). Surgical repair techniques included an open approach with or without interposition graft (n = 16) and an endoscopic approach (n = 6). CONCLUSIONS: Early diagnosis and proper repair of laryngeal cleft are essential to prevent pulmonary damage and associated morbidity. Each patient should be assessed properly, and the surgical approach should be individualized based on the symptoms, other associated findings on airway endoscopy, and type of cleft.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it