Robin Sequence: 5-Year Speech Outcomes—A Case-Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pierre Robin sequence (Robin sequence) is defined as the triad of micrognathia, glossoptosis, and airway obstruction. It is frequently associated with palatal clefting. In recent years, increased interest in speech outcomes of cleft patients diagnosed with Robin sequence has been shown. METHODS: Speech outcomes of cleft patients with Robin sequence were assessed at age 5 in comparison with a cleft palate-only cohort. Speech parameters were evaluated according to the Cleft Audit Protocol for Speech-Augmented and analyzed using the National Audit Standards for Speech (United Kingdom). All patients were treated in the same institution during the same period (2005 to 2012). Subjects who needed nasopharyngeal airway support and those whose airway was managed by positioning only were eligible. RESULTS: Fifty-one cleft patients diagnosed with Robin sequence were included in this study. Outcomes were compared to those of 128 nonsyndromic cleft palate-only patients.Patients with Robin sequence were shown to present with a significantly higher rate of cleft speech characteristics in comparison to the reference cohort (p = 0.001). Furthermore, it was shown that Robin sequence is associated with a significantly higher rate of secondary speech surgery for velopharyngeal dysfunction before the age of 5 (p = 0.016). Robin sequence patients with a nasopharyngeal airway presented with a higher rate of cleft speech characteristics compared to Robin sequence patients managed with positioning only. CONCLUSION: Cleft patients with Robin sequence are more likely to need further surgery to correct velopharyngeal dysfunction before the age of 5 and are more prone to present with cleft speech characteristics at the age of 5. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".