Presurgical Cleft Management of Infants: A Survey of ACPA Approved and International Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Teams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterize the presurgical infant orthopedics (PSIO) and gingivoperiosteoplasty (GPP) protocols across the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association (ACPA) approved and international cleft palate (CP) and craniofacial teams. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: ACPA approved and international CP and craniofacial teams. RESULTS: Respondents from 115 out of 215 ACPA approved and international CP and craniofacial teams permitted to contact (out of a total of 259 total teams) completed the survey (response rate = 53.5%). There were 89 (77.4%) ACPA approved teams and the remaining international teams were mainly located in Europe (13.0%). Seventy-eight CP and craniofacial teams (67.8%) provided PSIO and 65 (83.3%) of these teams used alveolar molding (AM). Twenty-two CP and craniofacial teams (19.1%) provided GPP. A mean of 9.5 ± 2.6 different specialists were on the cleft team with the most common being orthodontists (97.4%), speech therapists (96.5%), and plastic/craniofacial surgeons (90.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Most ACPA approved and ACPA registered international CP and craniofacial teams provided PSIO techniques by orthodontists using lip taping (LT) and AM, while few provide GPP.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".