Prevalence and Patterns of Orofacial Clefts among Children from Different Regions of Saudi Arabia: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim and objective: To report on the prevalence and patterns of orofacial clefts (OFC) among Saudi Arabian children by analyzing the results of the studies that have been reported in the literature. Materials and methods: A data search was carried out for the articles that had reported on the prevalence of OFC among the Saudi Arabian population in databases like Web of Science, PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Saudi Digital Library. Articles that were published over the last 15 years were included in this study, following which 13 studies were assessed for qualitative data. Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scales for cross-sectional studies were used for analyzing the methodological quality of these studies. Results: The prevalence of OFC was within the range of 0.65-1.9/1,000 live births. The highest was witnessed in the Medina region. Parent's consanguinity was the most common risk factor in OFC cases in the included studies. OFC was found to be higher among the male population in comparison with the female. Conclusion: The prevalence of OFC in Saudi Arabian children follows the global patterns of OFC. Isolated cleft lip (CL) and cleft palate (CP) are the most common forms of OFC. The prevalence of orofacial anomalies was reported more among children born to parents who had consanguineous marriages. Considering the higher rate of consanguinity among this population, there is an urgent need of developing educational and counseling programs to address the genetic consequences. How to cite this article: Albalawi F Alsaeed S, Alalola B, et al. Prevalence and Patterns of Orofacial Clefts among Children from Different Regions of Saudi Arabia: A Systematic Review. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2023;16(1):124-130.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".