An Intercenter Comparison of Nasolabial Appearance Including a Center Using Nasoalveolar Molding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare nasolabial appearance outcomes of patients with complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (CUCLP) in preadolescence from 4 cleft centers including a center using nasoalveolar molding (NAM) and primary nasal reconstruction. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Four cleft centers in North America. PATIENTS: 135 subjects with repaired CUCLP. METHODS: Frontal and profile facial pictures were assessed using the Asher-McDade rating scale. Intra- and interrater reliability were tested using weighted Kappa statistics. Median scores by center were compared with Kruskal-Wallis statistics. RESULTS: Intrarater reliability scores were moderate to good. Interrater reliability scores were moderate. Significant differences ( P < .05) among centers were found. For nasal form, center G (median = 2.83) had better scores than centers C and D (C median = 3.33, D median = 3.17). For nose symmetry, center G had better scores (median = 2.33) than all other centers (B median = 2.67, C median = 2.83, D median = 2.83). For vermillion border, center G had better scores (median = 2.58) than centers B and C (B median = 3.17, C median = 3.17). For nasolabial profile, center G (median score = 2.67) had better scores than center C (median = 3.00). For total nasolabial score, center G (median = 2.67) had better scores than all other centers (B median = 2.83, C median = 3, D median = 2.83). CONCLUSION: The protocol followed by center G, the only center that performed NAM and primary nasal reconstruction, produced better results in all categories when compared to center C, the only center that did not perform presurgical orthopedics or lip/nose revisions. When compared to centers that performed traditional presurgical orthopedics and surgical revisions (B and D), center G was not consistently better in all categories. As with other uncontrolled, retrospective intercenter studies, it is not possible to attribute the outcomes to a specific protocol component.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".