MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094837918 · doi:10.14295/idonline.v14i52.2734

Indicações Terapêuticas para freio lingual em recém-nascidos – Protocolo/Teste da Linguinha: Revisão de Literatura / Therapeutic indications for tongue frenulum in newborns – Protocol/TongueTest: Literature Review

2020· article· pt· W3094837918 on OpenAlexaff
Larissa Miranda Araújo, Edite Novais Borges Pinchemel

Bibliographic record

VenueID on line REVISTA DE PSICOLOGIA · 2020
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOral and Craniofacial Lesions
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGynecologyHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resumo: A anquiloglossia é uma anomalia do desenvolvimento caracterizada por um freio lingual curto, impedindo o livre movimento lingual, desencadeando interferências em suas funções. Neste sentido, o objetivo do presente estudo foi analisar através de uma revisão de literatura as implicações clínicas dessa anomalia em neonatos e as diferentes opiniões dos profissionais em relação a seu diagnóstico e indicações terapêuticas. Metodologia: Foi utilizado o método de pesquisa bibliográfico e realizado um estudo exploratório, por meio da análise científica da base de dados Scielo, Pubmed e Lilacs, sendo selecionados os artigos do idioma português e inglês, entre os anos de 2009 a 2020. Resultados: É notório a diversidade de dúvidas em se tratando de anomalias do freio, diante disso, há uma necessidade de maiores estudos acerca da anquiloglossia e seu encadeamento com recém-nascidos, visando uma melhor qualidade de vida do neonato e da mãe.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueID on line REVISTA DE PSICOLOGIASame topicOral and Craniofacial LesionsFrench-language works237,207