Incidence of cleft lip and palate in Iran. A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate meta-analysis of published data on overall incidence of cleft lip, cleft palate, and cleft lip and palate of newborns in Iran. METHODS: This meta-analysis was carried out at the School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran between May 2009 and December 2009. Our data were consisted of all incidences of cleft lip and palate from 1978 to June 2009, and we selected 11 studies. Inverse-variance weighting was implemented to calculate the random effect summary estimates and to produce a forest plot. Cumulative meta-analysis on published data was calculated and grouped. Publication bias was checked using both Begg's and Egger's test. RESULTS: Pooled incidence from 11 studies was 1.0/1000 (95% confidence interval: 0.5-1.5). There was no evidence of publication bias among the 11 studies (p-values for Begg's test was 0.53 and for Egger's test was 0.23). CONCLUSION: The incidence of cleft lip and palate in Iran was lower compared to other countries.
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 | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".