Detailed Cleft Measurements: A Comparison between Isolated Cleft Palates and Cleft Palates Associated with Cleft Lips
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there are differences in the anatomical cleft measurements between patients with isolated cleft palate (CP) with or without Pierre Robin sequence (PR) and those with cleft lip and palate (CLP). DESIGN: Prospective case series. SETTING: Tertiary care university-based medical center. PATIENTS: From 1993 to 2012, CP and CLP patients were prospectively enrolled in a database. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Several anatomical cleft parameters were recorded with precise measurements at the time of palatoplasty under general anesthesia. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-five patients were included in our study: 50 patients in the CP without PR group, 87 patients in the CP with or without PR (CPPR) group, and 38 patients in the CLP group. Patients in the CLP group had increased values for the following parameters compared to patients with CP and patients with CPPR: nasopharyngeal depth (P = .02 and P = .01, respectively); cleft width at posterior hard palate border (P < .001 and P < .001); width of the dental arch (P < .001 and P < .001); and total cleft length (P < 01 and P < .001). For cleft width at the soft palate level, there was a significant difference between the CP and CLP groups (P = .005). We found no statistically significant differences between the groups (CLP versus CP and CPPR, respectively) for the length of the soft palate (P = .74, P = .21) or for the length of the hard palate (P = .19, P = .08). CONCLUSION: There are significant differences in cleft and palate measurements between CLP and CP patients that may be useful to predict the occurrence of velopharyngeal insufficiency or other complications.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".