Isolated versus Pierre Robin Sequence Cleft Palates: Are They Different?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if there are any differences in size between isolated cleft palates (CPs) and those associated with Pierre Robin (PR) sequence. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective case series. SETTINGS: Tertiary care hospital. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: From 1993 to 2011, nonsyndromic isolated CP and PR sequence cases were classified as severe if the patients had respiratory or feeding difficulties. While patients were under general anesthesia, seven anatomical cleft parameters were prospectively measured in the operating room at the time of palatoplasty. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients without the PR sequence and 36 patients with the PR sequence were enrolled. Within the PR group, 61% of cases were mild and 39% were severe. A larger soft palate width was found to be statistically significant in a comparison of the severe PR cases with the isolated clefts (P < .005) and mild PR (P < .05), respectively. For the hard palate width, a statistically significant difference was found in a comparison of the narrower isolated cleft cases with the mild PR (P < .05) and the severe PR cases (P < .05), respectively. A shorter cleft length was found to be statistically significant in isolated clefts versus both the clefts of the mild PR (P < .05) and the severe PR cases (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The patients with PR sequence presented statistically significant different cleft characteristics. The increased width of the cleft at the soft palate level showed the greatest correlation with increased airway and feeding problems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".