MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250400387 · doi:10.15331/jdsm.7164

Rapid maxillary expansion effects on the upper airway dimensions and function in growing patients: An umbrella review

2020· article· en· W4250400387 on OpenAlexaff
Silvia Gianoni‐Capenakas, Karla Carpio Horta, Carlos Flores‐Mir, Manuel O. Lagravère, Camila Pachêco‐Pereira

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dental Sleep Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirwayFunction (biology)MedicineOrthodonticsSurgeryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Because numerous published systematic reviews have assessed the effect of rapid maxillary expansion (RME) over upper airway dimensional changes, it is important to map and summarize their conclusions.In addition, the accepted methods used to evaluate the upper airway across the different systematic reviews will be outlined and areas of strengths and weaknesses on the topic identified.Methods: Systematic reviews in which RME treatment outcomes as related to upper airway dimensional changes or breathing function in children and adolescents were included in this umbrella systematic review.Studies that investigated upper airway changes using three-dimensional imaging (cone beam computed tomography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging), acoustic rhinometry, rhinomanometry, and polysomnography correlated with RME effects were included.Studies on expansion using palatal anchorage with miniscrews and surgically assisted maxillary expansions were excluded, as well as studies including syndromic patients.Results: Sixty-six studies were found from the database searches.After managing duplicates, 33 studies were assessed based on the titles and abstracts, but only 16 reviews were considered for the next assessment phase (full text).From then, only 10 systematic reviews were finally included in this umbrella review.Conclusions: A significant amount of research has been published linking RME changes to increases in nasal respiratory capability, nasal volume, and linear transverse enlargement.However, methodologic inconsistencies and disagreements between the included studies (especially on the oropharyngeal dimensional changes after RME) lead to significant uncertainties about the consistency of the effect of RME changes, especially on the oropharynx region dimensions.It is not clear that the upper airway dimensional changes necessarily imply an improvement in actual breathing function.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.008
Bibliometrics0.0140.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dental Sleep MedicineSame topicAirway Management and Intubation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207