MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414454275 · doi:10.7759/cureus.92858

Surgical Repair of Cleft Lip: Comparison of Neonatal and Standard Timing in a Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4414454275 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kyle Walsh, C Foy

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCleft Lip and Palate Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityQueen's University Belfast
KeywordsPhiltrumUpper lipMEDLINEGenetic syndromesIntervention (counseling)Congenital disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cleft lip and palate (CLP) abnormalities are common birth defects encompassing isolated cleft lip, cleft palate, or combined CLP. Current knowledge indicates that CLP has both genetic and environmental causes, with strong associations between a positive family history and maternal factors such as smoking, alcohol consumption, teratogenic substance use, and poor nutrition. The upper lip develops as a result of the fusion of the paired medial nasal prominences to the maxillary prominences, forming the philtrum and lateral portions of the upper lip, respectively. Cleft lip, therefore, arises from a failure in those named structures to fuse. The current best treatment involves surgical repair to reconstruct the lip to restore normal appearance and function, including feeding and speech. This normally occurs around the age of six months (standard time) in most centers, but is performed much earlier, in the neonatal period, in other centers. This study aims to determine whether neonatal cleft lip repair is superior to standard time repair. Secondary aims are to determine both the feasibility and the safety of neonatal repair. Advanced literature searches were carried out using Medline ALL (1946 to date) and Embase (1974 to date); 11 articles were deemed relevant and included in this study. Aesthetic results showed excellent outcomes with neonatal repair with regard to the appearance of the scar, facial (lip and nasal) symmetry, but those aesthetic results are no better than those achieved at standard time. Although early intervention can be beneficial as early repair takes place when the cleft is less severe and when the tissues are more malleable, making the surgery less challenging, and when some aspects of fetal scar healing remain. Additionally, early repair has a positive impact on the development of the alveolar projections and can assist in reducing an alveolar cleft if present, improving the aesthetic outcome. Moreover, neonatal surgery carries with it no greater risk than surgery carried out at six months and will allow feeding to begin at an early stage, promoting recovery. Early repair also brings with it a large positive psychosocial impact, where infants and mothers can build a normal relationship from an early stage. Later in life, children and adults will be less self-conscious following good aesthetic repair. In conclusion, based on the limited available evidence, neonatal repair may be recommended over standard time 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.006
Bibliometrics0.0120.015
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.359 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicCleft Lip and Palate ResearchFrench-language works237,207