The Effects of Secondary Cleft Procedures on Alar Base Position and Nostril Morphology in Patients with Unilateral Clefts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare effects of secondary cleft procedures on alar base position and nostril morphology. DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Multidisciplinary cleft clinic at tertiary center. PATIENTS, PARTICIPANTS: Seventy consecutive patients with unilateral clefts were grouped according to secondary procedure. INTERVENTIONS: Alveolar bone graft versus total lip takedown with anatomic muscle repair versus single-stage total lip with cleft septorhinoplasty (nose-lip) versus rhinoplasty alone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Anthropometric measurements were recorded from pre- and postoperative photographs. Ratios of cleft to noncleft side were compared within and across groups pre- and postoperatively using parametric and nonparametric tests. RESULTS: Within the bone graft group, no differences were seen postoperatively in alar base position in long-term follow-up. The total lip group demonstrated greater symmetry at the alar base (P < .001), increased vertical lip dimension (P < .001), and decreased nostril height (P = .004) postoperatively. Within the nose-lip group, increased vertical dimension and alar base support (P < .001) were also seen postoperatively. Across groups, the single-stage nose-lip group demonstrated greatest alar base symmetry on worm's-eye view (P < .04). CONCLUSIONS: Alar base asymmetry in patients with unilateral clefts may be related to soft tissue deficiency and was not affected by alveolar bone grafting. Total lip takedown with anatomic muscle reapproximation was associated with increased alar base symmetry and vertical lip dimension on cleft to noncleft side. Greatest symmetry at the alar base was seen following single-stage nose-lip reconstruction, which may be an effective technique for correcting the secondary cleft lip nasal deformity.
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 | 0.000 | 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".