Maxillary Frenulum and “Lip Tie”: What Parents Understand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine the proportion of parents that have some knowledge of abnormal maxillary frenulum, or "lip tie," and their sources of this information. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Otolaryngology clinic. Methods: Consecutive parents of children ≤12 years of age presenting at a pediatric otolaryngology clinic were surveyed to discover their understanding of "lip tie" in children. The survey included questions on the effects of "lip tie," where they learned about "lip tie," whether they thought their child had "lip tie," whether they had a child undergo "lip tie" division, and how concerned they would be if they thought their child had "lip tie." Information on participant demographics and social media was collected. Results: Overall, 59.8% (193) of the 323 parents surveyed had heard of "lip tie"; of those, 17.1% (33) had a child that had undergone "lip tie" surgery. Most parents (91.2%, 176) thought "lip tie" caused breastfeeding problems. Roughly one-quarter of parents (51 of 197 responses) rated their concern about "lip tie" as >8 of 10 on a Likert scale (mean, 5.7). The reported sources of "lip tie" information included lactation consultants (36.8%, 71), nurses (22.8%, 44), and pediatricians (31.6%, 61) as well as nonmedical sources, such as social media, family, and friends (68.4%, 132). Overall, 87% (282) of the 323 participants reported daily use of social media. Conclusion: Although many parents are concerned about "lip tie," much of their information on this condition comes from nonmedical sources. Social media would be a valuable platform to provide accurate information on "lip tie."
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".