Robin Sequence: Clearing Nosologic Confusion
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 gather evidence surrounding the confusion in the classification of Robin sequence and inform those who have the power to make the changes in defining this symptom complex. METHOD: A questionnaire was sent to all participating cleft palate teams (N=204) of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association. The questionnaire identified the precise, different characteristics for diagnosing Robin sequence and evaluated whether the difference between a retrognathia and micrognathia influenced the diagnosis process. We subsequently also investigated whether the cleft type (i.e., U-shaped versus V-shaped) had any influence in the decision-making process. A PubMed literature review of the 50 most recent manuscripts about Robin sequence was evaluated also. RESULTS: Seventy-three questionnaires were received. This 35% response rate revealed 14 different definitions of Robin sequence. A PubMed literature review of 50 consecutive manuscripts revealed 15 different descriptions. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that nosologic confusion is widespread with regard to defining Robin sequence. This has implications for evaluating Robin sequence, giving advice about the prognosis and genetic counseling, and refining treatment options.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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