MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3171173644 · doi:10.1177/10556656211024477

Awareness of Orofacial Clefts in the Sultanate of Oman

2021· article· en· W3171173644 on OpenAlexaff
Khalifa Al Alawi, Sultan Al Shaqsi, Mouzan Al Ghaithi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCleft Lip and Palate Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCraniofacialIncidence (geometry)DeformityFamily medicinePositive attitudePopulationDentistryPediatricsDemographyEnvironmental healthSurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) is the most common craniofacial anomaly. In Oman, the incidence of CL/P is estimated to be 1.5 per 1000 live births per year. Knowledge, awareness, and attitude toward CL/P help to optimize the management of the condition and reduce social and emotional stress among this group of children and their family. In this survey, we assessed the public awareness, knowledge, and attitude toward this deformity in the Sultanate of Oman. METHOD: A cross-sectional study was conducted using validated questionnaire that was distributed using Google forms. RESULT: A total of 739 participants completed the survey. The majority is aware of cleft lip (86.7%) and palate (63.2%). In general, attitude toward patients with CL/P was positive. Females had higher knowledge compared to males, 54.4% and 32.9%, respectively. Online resources were the main source of information. CONCLUSION: There are variations in knowledge, awareness, and attitude toward CL/P among participants. Omani population needs to be educated more about CL/P, its complications if not treated, and the available treatment.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Cleft Palate-Craniofacial JournalSame topicCleft Lip and Palate ResearchFrench-language works237,207