Immediate postoperative outcomes after unilateral cleft lip repair do not differ by laterality: Results of the multiethnic smile index study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In addition to their lower prevalence, right-sided unilateral cleft lips are held by some surgeons to be more morphologically severe than left-sided unilateral cleft lips. These differences may impact surgical performance and outcomes of right- versus left-sided cleft repairs. The authors compared outcomes of left- and right-sided unilateral cleft repairs using a prospectively collected international dataset. Prospectively collected pre- and postoperative anthropometric measurements including columellar angle, cleft width, nostril widths, vertical lip heights, and horizontal vermillion lengths were compared between right- and left-sided unilateral cleft lip patients in Morocco, Bolivia, Vietnam, and Madagascar. Based on previous sociologic and cleft outcome studies, "unacceptable" postoperative outcomes were defined as those with a cleft-side/non-cleft-side vertical lip height discrepancy greater than 3 mm. Sixty-one percent of the 143 study patients had left-sided clefts. Mean preoperative cleft width ratios and the proportion of "severe" (cleft width ratio >= 0.5) clefts did not differ between right- and left-sided cleft lip patients. No differences were noted in postoperative lip vertical height ratios or the proportion of "acceptable" and "unacceptable" repair results between right- and left-sided cleft lips. Finally, no differences were noted in operative time between right- and left-sided cleft lips. In summary, using a prospectively collected international dataset, no significant differences were noted between left- and right-sided unilateral cleft lips in terms of severity, operative times, or ultimate outcomes.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".