Craniofacial Surgery in Children With Down Syndrome: A 6-decade Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Children with Down syndrome often present with craniofacial anomalies, some of which may be addressed through early surgical interventions. Unfortunately, there is limited guidance on considerations surrounding these procedures. This study aimed to examine craniofacial procedures across different countries, highlighting geographic variations and the availability of interventions and guidelines regarding craniofacial aspects of care for children with Down syndrome. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, and African Journals OnLine were searched from January 1, 1960, to March 31, 2024. Eligible studies reported elective craniofacial surgical, dental, or orthodontic interventions in pediatric Down syndrome patients and included at least 1 age statistic. Results: The 92 eligible studies comprised 2815 procedures. The United States contributed the largest number of procedures (1727, 61.4%), followed by Canada (345, 12.3%) and Germany (226, 8.0%). No recorded procedures were performed within Africa or South Asia. Globally, the mean ages of patients (in years) at the time of surgery, along with SD and coefficient of variation, were as follows: palatal plate therapy, 2.2 (3.1) (141.4%); tonsillectomy, 5.5 (3.9) (70.6%); extraocular muscle realignment, 6.9 (4.4) (63.5%); mastoidectomy, 10.1 (4.3) (42.7%); glossectomy, 10.0 (3.5) (35.1%); and hypoglossal nerve stimulator implantation, 14.8 (3.1) (21.2%). Although no established craniofacial guidelines were identified, 4 algorithms addressing craniofacial aspects of care were found. Conclusions: To address this gap, we propose the development of preliminary craniofacial care guidelines for children with Down syndrome, prioritizing early screening measures to facilitate timely access to reconstructive care. Subsequent studies will be essential to validate and refine these guidelines.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".