A Prospective Study to Examine Responsiveness and Minimally Important Differences (MIDs) for the CLEFT-Q Scales Following Three Cleft-Specific Operations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<i>Objective</i>The aim of this study was to examine internal responsiveness and estimate minimally important differences (MIDs) for CLEFT-Q scales.<i>Design</i>In this prospective cohort study, participants completed the CLEFT-Q appearance and health-related quality of life (HRQL) scales before and six months after cleft-related surgery.<i>Setting</i>Seven cleft centres in Canada, USA and UK participated.<i>Patients/Participants</i>Patients were ages 8–29 years with CL/P.<i>Interventions</i>Patients underwent rhinoplasty, orthognathic or cleft lip scar revision surgery.<i>Main Outcome Measure(s)</i>Internal responsiveness was examined using Cohen's d effect sizes (ESs) based on the following interpretation: 0.20–0.49 small, 0.50–0.79 moderate and ≥ 0.80 large. MIDs were estimated using two distribution-based approaches.<i>Results</i>Participants had a rhinoplasty (n = 31), orthognathic (n = 21) or cleft lip scar revision (n = 18) surgery. Most participants were males (56%) and aged 8–11 years (41%). Following rhinoplasty, ESs were larger for the nose (0.92, p = 0.001) and nostrils (0.94, p <i>Conclusions</i>CLEFT-Q detected change in key outcomes for three cleft-specific surgeries, providing evidence of its responsiveness. Estimated MIDs will aid in interpreting this PROM.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".