Furlow Palatoplasty: Should We Also Focus on the Size of the Nasopharynx?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: (1) To determine the incidence rate of velopharyngeal dysfunction (VPD) according to 7 speech criteria post-Furlow palatoplasty. (2) To find an anatomical measurement of the cleft palate (or combination of measurements) associated with the occurrence of VPD. Study design: Retrospective cohort study. Participants and Methods: Fifty-six patients with cleft palate ± cleft lip underwent palatoplasty with the Furlow technique at the age of 10 months. Pre-and post-palatoplasty cleft palate measurements were collected during the procedure. Three blinded speech-language pathologists (SLPs) retrospectively scored the patients from the chart data at age 4. Student t test and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis were used to evaluate the association and predictive capacity between cleft measurements and parameters (M&P) with all VPD criteria. Results: The SLPs found an incidence of VPD according to 7 criteria: hypernasality (11%), audible nasal emission (4%), nasal rustle (14%), compensatory errors (4%), impairment of speech understandability (7%), and impairment of speech acceptability (16%). The SLPs recommended a secondary surgical procedure in 5 patients (9%). A statistically significant association was found between, respectively, 17 and 5 M&P and the occurrence of compensatory errors and audible nasal emission. Our data suggest that the length of the cleft, the cleft area, and the postoperative transversal size of the nasopharynx are the best indicators of the future positivity of VPD criteria. Conclusion: The size of the postoperative transverse nasopharyngeal area during the primary cleft palate procedure may become the focus of the next generation of cleft surgeons to reduce the incidence of VPD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".