The Effect of Written Information on Recall of Surgical Risks of Primary Cleft Palate Repair: A Randomized Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate parents' understanding of the risks of primary cleft palate surgery after counseling with and without the use of a written informational aid. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, single-blind trial. SETTING: Academic tertiary care center. PARTICIPANTS: Parents of children undergoing primary cleft palate surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Parents were randomized to receive a standard informed consent discussion with or without provision of a written informational aid in the form of a pamphlet. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE: Parents' recall of 9 specific surgical risks 3 weeks after informed consent discussion. RESULTS: = .37). The most commonly recalled risks were fistula formation and bleeding, while the least frequent were facial growth restriction and need for further surgery. No differences in risk recall were observed based on participant's gender, level of education, or income. CONCLUSION: Parents of children undergoing primary cleft palate surgery recall less than 50% of counseled risks. The use of a written aid in the form of a pamphlet did not significantly improve recall in this sample. These results demonstrate that surgeons should implement additional measures to improve comprehension of surgical risks.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".