Comparison of Facial Morphology in Two Populations with Complete Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate from Two Different Centers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify differences in craniofacial morphology of two populations with a history of complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) treated under different protocols. DESIGN: Retrospective longitudinal cohort study. SETTING: Cleft Center of the University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands, and the Cleft Lip and Palate Program, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada. SUBJECTS: Nineteen patients (16 male, 3 female) from Nijmegen and 19 patients (16 male, 3 female) from Toronto. Each patient was matched for sex and age with a patient from the other group. The mean ages at which lateral cephalometric radiographs were available for the Nijmegen group were 5.5, 9.9, and 18.3 years, while for the Toronto group these were available at mean ages of 5.3, 10.1, and 18.3 years, respectively. Eighteen patients from the Nijmegen group received an alveolar bone graft at a mean age of 9.5 years (range 8.2 to 13.5 years). None of the patients from Toronto received bone grafts. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Eighteen cephalometric variables per radiograph were calculated at each time registration, using Dentofacial Planner cephalometric software. Statistical evaluation was performed with repeated-measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: No differences were seen in the maxillary measurements. The patients in the Toronto group had significantly larger mandibles at all three time registrations. CONCLUSIONS: The Nijmegen and Toronto protocols resulted in similar maxillary projections in patients with UCLP. Comparison of data from other studies supports the contention that the larger profile convexity of the Nijmegen group is a reflection of a genetically determined smaller mandibular size in the Dutch population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".