Correlação entre escalas de avaliação da cicatrização e as alterações miofuncionais orofaciais em pacientes com queimaduras de cabeça e pescoço
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Verify the correlation between two scar assessment scales and the presence of orofacial myofunctional disorders (OMD) in patients with head and neck (H&N) burns. METHODS: Participants of this study were 16 adult individuals with H&N full-thickness burns. Data were collected through assessment of mandibular range of movement and application of the following instruments: Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), Vancouver Scar Scale, and Orofacial Myofunctional Evaluation with Scores (OMES). RESULTS: Results showed moderate negative correlation between the variables deglutition, breathing, total score of the functions, total score on the OMES and scores on the scar assessment scales, indicating that the higher (more severe) the scores on these scales, the lower the scores on the items of the OMES (indicative of greater OMD severity). No correlations were observed between the items of the OMES and the POSAS Patient scale. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that there is correlation between scar severity in burn patients, measured through clinical scales, and presence of OMD. Patients who present scores indicative of H&N pathological scars should be immediately referred to orofacial myofunctional assessment.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".