Prevalence, diagnosis, and treatment of ankyloglossia: methodologic review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the diagnostic criteria for, the prevalence of, and the effectiveness of frenotomy for treatment of ankyloglossia. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and CINAHL databases were searched for articles suitable for a methodologic review of studies on various aspects of ankyloglossia. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that presented data on patients and addressed ankyloglossia in relation to breastfeeding were selected. Case reports, case series, retrospective studies, prospective controlled studies, and randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis. Opinion pieces, literature reviews, studies without data on patients, studies that did not focus on breastfeeding, position statements, and surveys were excluded. SYNTHESIS: There is no well-validated clinical method for establishing a diagnosis of ankyloglossia. Five studies using different diagnostic criteria found a prevalence of ankyloglossia of between 4% and 10%. The results of 6 non-randomized studies and 1 randomized study assessing the effectiveness of frenotomy for improving nipple pain, sucking, latch, and continuation of breastfeeding all suggested frenotomy was beneficial. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Diagnostic criteria for ankyloglossia are needed to allow for comparative studies of treatment. Frenotomy is likely an effective treatment, but further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm this. A reliable frenotomy decision rule is also needed.
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".