Cranial Base Angle in Patients With Cleft Lip and Palate—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Diverse findings have been reported for the cranial base angle (CBA) in patients with CLP (cleft lip and palate) and non-CLP controls. Objective: The aim of this study is to assess and evaluate the CBA in patients with CLP and non-CLP controls. Methods: Data from PubMed, OVID Technologies, Inc., Cochrane, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS), Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE for Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE) with relevant terms was extracted until December 31, 2020. Inclusion criteria were data of patients with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) and bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP). In the case of UCLP and BCLP, patients with craniofacial syndromes were excluded. The study proposal was registered with PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42021228632). Results: Fifteen studies with a total of 2032 participants were included for the systematic review and 14 studies with a total of 1972 participants were included for the meta-analysis. The risk of bias was assessed using the Modified Newcastle Ottawa scale under seven domains by two authors. Thirteen studies were graded as “good” and two as “satisfactory.” The CBA in patients with CLP were greater than the non CLP Class I controls in six of the 15 studies. CBA was greater in patients with CLP than non-CLP controls by 1.21° (95% CI of 0.19-2.22). Meta-analysis reported considerable heterogeneity (I 2 = 86%). Anterior (ACB) and posterior cranial base (PCB) lengths were shorter in patients with CLP than in the non-cleft Class I controls by 2.14 mm (95% CI of 0.99-3.30) and 2.06 mm (95% CI of 1.52-2.60), respectively. Conclusion: Most studies were graded as good. Patients with CLP had greater CBA and shorter ACB and PCB lengths when compared to non-CLP controls.
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 | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".