Major Salivary Duct Clipping for Control Problems in Developmentally Challenged Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To introduce a technical modification for interruption of the parotid and submandibular salivary ducts and to demonstrate the technique's effectiveness and effect on quality of life. DESIGN: Retrospective, uncontrolled, consecutive case series. SETTING: A tertiary care pediatric otolaryngology practice. PATIENTS: Eighteen drooling and aspirating children. INTERVENTION: Transoral interruption of parotid and submandibular ducts using vascular clips. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Manifestations of poor saliva control (visible drooling, number of shirts and bibs used, choking episodes, embarrassment, and incidence of salivary aspiration), Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory scores (possible score range, - 100 to + 100), and complications. RESULTS: Eighteen patients (10 boys and 8 girls) were treated in 14 months. Patient age ranged from 2 to 14 years. Follow-up ranged from 3 to 18 months. No complications occurred. Nine patients had no drooling at all after surgery. There was a significant reduction in the number of bibs and shirts used (P < .001). Regarding measures indicating circumoral skin problems, embarrassment, choking episodes, and aspiration pneumonia, all the patients had significant improvements after surgery. The mean Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory score was 33.2. CONCLUSIONS: Salivary duct clipping is an efficient and safe method of controlling saliva in neurologically challenged children. The operation positively affects the children's quality of life.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".