Behavioral-Social Adjustment of Adolescents with Craniofacial Microsomia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to assess differences in psychosocial adjustment between adolescents with and without craniofacial microsomia (CFM). DESIGN: This is a case-control follow-up study in adolescents with and without CFM. SETTING: Participants were originally recruited as infants from 26 cities across the United States and Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included 142 adolescents with CFM (cases) and 316 peers without CFM (controls), their caregivers, and their teachers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Social and behavior measures from the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessments (ASEBA), the PedsQL: Core Version, and the Children's Communication Checklist-2nd edition (CCC-2) were used. Linear regression was used to estimate case-control differences and corresponding standardized effect sizes (ES) and 95% confidence intervals after adjustment for sociodemographic confounds. We also examined case-control differences by facial phenotype and hearing status. RESULTS: The magnitude and direction of case-control differences varied across assessment and respondent, but were generally modest (ES = -0.4 to 0.02, P values ranged from .003 to .85). There was little evidence for variation in case-control differences across different facial phenotypes or as a function of hearing status. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that in spite of multiple risk factors, adolescents with CFM exhibit behavior problems no more frequently than their peers without CFM. Future studies of individuals with CFM should focus on resilience and social coping mechanisms, in addition to maladjustment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".