Cleft Lip and Palate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cleft lip and/or palate is a debilitating condition if left unrepaired, resulting in significant speech, hearing, swallowing, feeding, and psychosocial impairments. The authors' objective was to determine the potential impact of being born with cleft lip and/or palate by using previously validated health state utility assessment measures. METHODS: A utility assessment using the visual analogue scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble was used to obtain utilities for cleft lip and/or palate, monocular blindness, and binocular blindness from a prospective sample of the general population and medical students. Average utility scores were compared using paired t test. Linear regression was performed using age, race, and education as independent predictors of each of the utility scores. RESULTS: Over a 1-year prospective enrollment period, 110 participants were included in our utility analysis. The utility outcome scores for cleft lip and/or palate (visual analogue scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble, 0.69±0.18, 0.85±016, and 0.84±0.18, respectively) were statistically different from those of binocular blindness (visual analogue scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble: 0.38±0.17, 0.70±0.24, and 0.66±0.25, respectively; p<0.001) but not statistically different from those of monocular blindness (visual analogue scale, time trade-off, and standard gamble, 0.67±0.15, 0.86±0.15, and 0.84±0.18, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference in utility scores between male and female participants. CONCLUSION: The results of the study demonstrate objectively via health state utility scores that the perceived burden of being born with cleft lip and/or palate is comparable to living with monocular blindness.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.006 |
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".