Presurgical Presentation of Columellar Features, Nostril Anatomy, and Alveolar Alignment in Bilateral Cleft Lip and Palate after Infant Orthopedics with and without Nasoalveolar Molding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: (1) To evaluate quantitative differences in presurgical presentations of alveolar alignment and nostril anatomy of infants with BCLP treated with nasoalveolar molding (NAM) from those treated with maxillary infant orthopedics only (IO) and (2) to detect interrelationships between presurgical nasoalveolar anatomy, age at lip surgery, age of commencing, and durations of alveolar and nasal molding. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on nasal-alveolar measurements and presurgical treatment records of infants with BCLP who received lip repair by a single surgeon in a tertiary-care, referral teaching hospital consecutively from 2000 to 2009 after undergoing NAM (n = 29; 51 nostrils) or IO (n = 17; 32 nostrils). Paired t tests analyzed nostril and alveolar symmetry in each group. Intergroup comparisons were made by linear mixed-model regression analyses. Pearson's correlation tests were conducted to detect significant interrelationships within groups. RESULTS: Significant between-group differences were noted in alveolar irregularity (NAM: 3.58 ± 1.02 mm; IO: 7.31 ± 1.28 mm; p < .01), columellar length (NAM: 2.88 ± 0.27 mm; IO: 1.48 ± 0.34 mm; p < .001), columellar width (NAM: 6.10 ± 0.21 mm; IO: 6.88 ± 0.26 mm; p < .01), columellar length/width ratio (NAM: 0.48 ± 0.05; IO: 0.20 ± 0.07; p < .05), and columellar angle (NAM: 0.98 ± 1.1°; IO: 3.69 ± 1.37°; p < .05). Differences in age of commencing presurgical orthopedics, lip surgery, and treatment durations were not significant. Better-aligned alveolar segments in the NAM group did not statistically correlate with nostril dimensions. Alveolar irregularity and nostril height in the IO group strongly correlated. CONCLUSIONS: Infants who received NAM had longer columellae and better-aligned alveolar segments than those who received only IO. Other nostril dimensions were not significantly different.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".