Upper and Lower Limb Anomalies in Craniofacial Microsomia and Its Relation to the OMENS+ Classification: A Multicenter Study of 688 Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Craniofacial microsomia (CFM) is characterized by several malformations related to the first and second pharyngeal arch. Patients typically present with facial asymmetry, but extracraniofacial organ systems might be involved, including limb anomalies. The purpose of this study was to analyze the occurrence of upper and lower limb anomalies in CFM patients. Furthermore, the relation between limb anomalies and the OMENS+ (orbital distortion; mandibular hypoplasia; ear anomaly; nerve involvement; soft-tissue deficiency; and associated extracraniofacial anomalies) classification was examined. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted including patients with CFM from craniofacial units in three different countries. Patients were included when clinical and/or radiographic images were available. Demographic, radiographic, and clinical information was obtained. RESULTS: A cohort of 688 patients was available and selected for analysis. In total, 18.2% of the patients were diagnosed with at least one upper and/or lower limb anomaly. Upper and lower limb anomalies were seen in, respectively, 13.4% and 7.8% of patients. Patients with other extracraniofacial anomalies had a significantly higher risk for limb anomalies (OR, 27.98; P = 0.005). Laterality of CFM and a higher OMENS score were not associated with limb anomalies. CONCLUSIONS: More than one in six patients with craniofacial microsomia have limb anomalies. Therefore, clinical awareness for these anomalies is warranted. Examination and, if present, follow-up on limb abnormalities in patients with CFM should be implemented in the standard assessment of CFM patients. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".