Rapid Palatal Expansion Effects on Nasal Airway Dimensions as Measured by Acoustic Rhinometry
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate available information on the effects of rapid maxillary expansion on nasal airway minimal cross-sectional area and volume, as measured by acoustic rhinometry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic database search was conducted. Based on abstracts/titles, articles were initially selected; then full articles were retrieved and were further sorted according to secondary, more stringent criteria. References from selected articles were hand-searched for potential missed publications. Clinical trials using acoustic rhinometry on subjects undergoing rapid maxillary expansion therapy were included. Syndromic or medically compromised patients and absence of an untreated control group were reasons for exclusion. Selected studies thereafter were evaluated methodologically. RESULTS: Only four articles reached final selection, and their overall methodology scores were low, limiting the applicability of results. After rapid maxillary expansion, three of four studies found statistically significant increases in minimal cross-sectional area, and two of three studies reported statistically significant increases in nasal cavity volume as compared with control groups. It appears that any increase is less stable if a traditional technique is used on patients who have passed their peak growth spurt. CONCLUSIONS: Although some increases in nasal dimensions have been reported, the changes in nasal volume were small and should not be presented to patients as a clinically significant indication for therapeutic maxillary expansion.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it