Skeletal Maturation in Patients With Cleft Lip and/or Palate: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence regarding skeletal maturation in patients with cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) and to investigate whether the skeletal maturation is delayed in these patients. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: Electronic and manual searches of scientific literature were conducted in 4 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science). Cohort studies that compared the skeletal maturation of patients with CL/P with that of children without CL/P were eligible for inclusion. The quality of included cohort studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients of any sex and ethnicity with CL/P and children without CL/P were included in this systematic review. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Difference in skeletal maturation between patients with CL/P and patients without CL/P. RESULTS: Thirteen retrospective cohort studies were included in this systematic review. Ten studies were considered of high quality and 3 were considered of general quality. The results of the included studies comparing skeletal maturation of patients with CL/P and children without CL/P were heterogeneous. CONCLUSION: Heterogeneity of skeletal maturation assessment methods, chronological age, sex, cleft type, and race may influence the final results of clinical studies on skeletal maturation in patients with CL/P. Overall, there is limited evidence to determine whether the skeletal maturation level of patients with CL/P is delayed compared to that of normal children. Further studies are needed to determine the skeletal maturation patterns in patients with CL/P.
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 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".