Lives of Irish Adolescents Who Were Born With a Cleft (LIA-Cleft) <sup/>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The objective was to describe the lives of adolescents, who were born with cleft lip and palate (CL/P), in comparison to the general population as recorded in Growing up in Ireland (GUI), the national longitudinal study of children and youth. Design This was a cross-sectional study. Setting: The study was performed in a cleft center at a university teaching hospital. Participants: Adolescents born with CL/P in the years 2007 to 2009. Interventions: Growing up in Ireland questionnaires, which assessed demographics, health and experience of friendship, school, leisure, and social life, were adapted and administered to adolescents and their parents/guardians, who were identified from a prospectively maintained cleft database. Data were compared to that of GUI Cohort ‘08. Main Outcome Measures: Outcome measures comprised primary caregiver and young person self-report items. Mental health and psychological well-being were assessed using validated instruments including the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Results Thirty adolescents (10 female, 20 male) participated in the LIA-Cleft group. LIA-Cleft respondents indicated poorer ratings of both medical and dental health than the GUI group. Responses to questions regarding friendship, bullying, physical activity, social media, and screen time were similar in the GUI and LIA-Cleft groups. The LIA-Cleft group were less satisfied with their lives and exhibited lower self-esteem than the GUI group, but did not differ in measures of mental health and well-being or socioemotional well-being. Conclusions In spite of reporting poorer medical and dental health, young people who were born with CL/P in Ireland lead lives that are broadly similar to their peers in the general population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".