MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3180498725 · doi:10.23804/ejpd.2021.22.02.8

Perioral muscle activity changes after Lip Bumper treatment.

2021· article· en· W3180498725 on OpenAlexaff
Ludovica Nucci, Paola Martina Marra, L Femiano, Gaetano Isola, Carlos Flores‐Mir, Letizia Perillo, Vincenzo Grassia

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDysphagia Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineElectromyographySwallowingLower lipRest (music)Upper lipBalance (ability)Physical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryAnatomyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: This prospective non-randomised case-control study analysed lip muscle activity after Lip Bumper (LB) treatment thought surface electromyography. METHODS: The study group was composed of 40 young patients with a mean age of 10 years and 1 month, treated with LB in the lower arch, while 40 children who did not undergo any treatment, matched for sex and age with the previous sample, constituted the control group. Measurements were performed at the beginning and after 1 year for both groups. Electromyographic recordings were obtained in rest position and during the swallowing of 50 ml of water. RESULTS: In the study group, after 1 year of LB treatment, a statistically significant decrease in values was found; specifically, in upper lip muscle activities at rest position with the appliance in situ (p <0.002) and both with (p <0.001) and without (p <0.001) the appliance for the lower lip. CONCLUSION: One year of LB treatment significantly reduced lip muscle activities at both rest position and during swallowing compared with the untreated sample. These results indicated a potential short-term of upper and lower lip muscle adaptation to the new balance induced by LB 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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 venuePubMedSame topicDysphagia Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207