Effects of different surgical treatments on children with ankyloglossia: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Ankyloglossia is a situation where the tongue tip cannot go beyond the mandibular incisor because the frenulum linguae is short. It could affect children's health by interfering with their ability to talk, breast feeding and dental development. The most effective measure to control ankyloglossia is the surgical method. However, which surgical procedure is the best one is still controversial. Thus, this protocol aims to assess the effectiveness of different surgical interventions in children with ankyloglossia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and OVID will be searched for relevant information from inception to 31 May 2022. Observational studies in English that investigate the association between surgical methods and ankyloglossia will be included in this protocol. This protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols. The Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for longitudinal studies will be used to assess the included studies. The improvement of breast feeding and nipple pain will be the primary outcome. STATA V.15.1 will do the statistical analysis in the meta-analysis. Subgroup and meta-regression will be carried out based on the characteristics of included studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review and meta-analysis will summarise relevant information on the effects of different surgical treatments on patients with ankyloglossia. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications. The data included in this study will be extracted from the published original studies. Thus, ethical approval and informed consent will not be required. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022323350.
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 | 0.049 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 0.006 |
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".