Incidence of oral tie diagnosis and treatment in Southwestern Ontario: A survey study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ankyloglossia describes a short lingual frenulum restricting tongue mobility. There are no universally accepted diagnostic criteria, and the rate of diagnosis and treatment are increasing. Many frenotomies are performed in the outpatient setting, making it difficult to estimate ankyloglossia incidence. This study aims to estimate the rate of diagnosis and common indications cited for treatment of ankyloglossia in a large catchment in Southwestern Ontario, Canada. METHODS: A survey was administered to all patients presenting to a pediatric otolaryngology clinic and five community pediatric clinics querying oral tie diagnosis, indications for treatment communicated to parents, recommended treatments, providers involved, procedure-related complications, and cost. RESULTS: Of the 266 respondents, 53.0 % (n = 141) were diagnosed with an oral tie. The most common reason to seek assessment was breast feeding difficulties (69.7 %, n = 92). The majority (78.8 %, n = 104) of patients diagnosed with a tongue tie were recommended to receive treatment, primarily frenotomy (69.7 %, n = 92). Complications included pain (24.2 %) and mild/moderate bleeding (11.0 %). Most patients paid out-of-pocket for this procedure, with only 22.6 % (n = 21) of procedures being covered by provincial insurance and 19.4 % (n = 18) by private insurance. Overall, 84.4 % (n = 76) of parents were satisfied or very satisfied with their decision to pursue treatment. CONCLUSION: The rate of tongue tie diagnosis in survey respondents was more than double the national rate (22.6 %), possibly representing over diagnosis or overtreatment in Southwestern Ontario. Public health and education efforts may be required to ensure patients are appropriately selected for frenotomy procedures, to limit adverse outcomes and cost to patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".