Surgical Anatomy of Cleft Palate: A 3-Dimensional Computer Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cleft palate anatomy is challenging to appreciate. This study aimed to develop clear and comprehensive 3-dimensional (3D) models of cleft palate anatomy from a surgical perspective for cleft palate repair. METHODS: Cadaver dissections, the Visible Human Project, literature review, and surgical experience were used to obtain consensus on cleft palate anatomy. A computed tomography scan was segmented using 3D Slicer to develop bony anatomy as the foundation for the development of overlying soft-tissue structures. Computer modeling software, ZBrush and Blender, were used to refine the bony model and to develop 3D models of soft-tissue anatomy de novo. RESULTS: A 3D computer model of a Veau 2 cleft palate was created, complete with a hard palate and skull base foundation. The superior constrictor and buccinator were modeled to represent the oral cavity. The palatopharyngeus and palatoglossus were modeled, with the palatopharyngeus comprising an oral and nasal head enveloping the levator veli palatini within the middle third of the velum before inserting into the posterior hard palate shelf medially. The tensor veli palatini was modeled with 2 insertions: (1) a lateral tendinous nasal component and (2) an oral and medial aponeurosis. A seroglandular/adipose layer, periosteum, blood vessels and mucosa were incorporated. CONCLUSIONS: A realistic and accurate 3D computer model of cleft palate anatomy was developed using 4 methods to obtain consensus. The model represents the clearest representation of cleft palate anatomy relevant to surgeons who perform cleft palate repair.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".