Deeper Understanding of Appearance in Orofacial Clefts: A Structural Equation Model of the CLEFT-Q Appearance Scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The CLEFT-Q is a patient-reported outcome measure with seven scales measuring elements of facial appearance in cleft lip and/or palate. We built on the validated CLEFT-Q structural model to describe conceptual relationships between these scales, and tested our hypothesis through structural equation modeling (SEM). In our hypothesized model, the appearance of the nose, nostrils, teeth, jaw, lips, and cleft lip scar all contribute to overall facial appearance. METHODS: We included 640 participants from the international CLEFT-Q field test. Model fit was assessed using weighted least squares mean and variance adjusted regression. The model was then refined through modification indices. The fit of the hypothesized model was confirmed in an independent sample of 452 participants. RESULTS: The refined model demonstrated excellent fit to the data (comparative fit index 0.999, Tucker-Lewis index 0.999, root mean square error of approximation 0.036 and standardized root mean square residual 0.036). The confirmatory analysis also demonstrated excellent model fit. CONCLUSION: Our structural model, based on a clinical understanding of appearance in orofacial clefting, aligns with CLEFT-Q field test data. This supports the instrument's use and the exploration of a wider range of applications, such as multidimensional computerized adaptive testing.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".