Protocol for a Prospective Observational Study of Revision Palatoplasty Versus Pharyngoplasty for Treatment of Velopharyngeal Insufficiency Following Cleft Palate Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To present the design and methodology for an actively enrolling comparative effectiveness study of revision palatoplasty versus pharyngoplasty for the treatment of velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI). DESIGN: Prospective observational multicenter study. SETTING: Twelve hospitals across the United States and Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals who are 3-23 years of age with a history of repaired cleft palate and a diagnosis of VPI, with a total enrollment target of 528 participants. INTERVENTIONS: Revision palatoplasty and pharyngoplasty (either pharyngeal flap or sphincter pharyngoplasty), as selected for each participant by their treatment team. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The primary outcome is resolution of hypernasality, defined as the absence of consistent hypernasality as determined by blinded perceptual assessment of a standard speech sample recorded twelve months after surgery. The secondary outcome is incidence of new onset obstructive sleep apnea. Statistical analyses will use propensity score matching to control for demographics, medical history, preoperative severity of hypernasality, and preoperative imaging findings. RESULTS: Study recruitment began February 2021. As of September 2022, 148 participants are enrolled, and 78 have undergone VPI surgery. Enrollment is projected to continue into 2025. Collection of postoperative evaluations should be completed by the end of 2026, with dissemination of results soon thereafter. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with VPI following cleft palate repair are being actively enrolled at sites across the US and Canada into a prospective observational study evaluating surgical outcomes. This study will be the largest and most comprehensive study of VPI surgery outcomes to date.
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 | 0.040 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 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".