MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415706771 · doi:10.1177/10556656251390716

Experiences of Obturator Use in Adults With Unrepaired Cleft Palate: A Qualitative Study

2025· article· en· W4415706771 on OpenAlexaff
Barbara Salazar, Jonathan Diaz, M Murillo Benitez, Paulina Ocampo, Julio Recalde, Miguel E. Fariña, B León Aguilar, Silvia Velasquez, Allyn Auslander, Michael Bezuhly

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCleft Lip and Palate Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalatoplastyPalatal obturatorQualitative researchAge appropriateMEDLINEPatient satisfactionHard palate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In low-resource settings, adults with unrepaired cleft palate often have limited access to surgery. Palatal obturators have been proposed as an alternative to surgery in older patients. This study explored the experiences of 5 adults fitted with obturators while awaiting primary palatoplasty in Paraguay. Despite initial discomfort, patients reported improved eating, speech, and self-esteem. Ultimately, however, all chose surgery, viewing it as a more permanent solution for speech issues. These findings highlight that while obturators offer benefits, patients prioritize surgery for long-term outcomes. This study points to the need for further research to identify strategies to optimize patient acceptance and outcomes of obturator use before they can be considered a feasible alternative to surgery for adults in low-resource settings.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueThe Cleft Palate-Craniofacial JournalSame topicCleft Lip and Palate ResearchFrench-language works237,207