Bibliographic record
Abstract
Z-plasty approach; Congenital problem Summary Congenital Mid-line Cervical Cleft (CMCC) is a rare but interesting con-genital anomaly of the neck that is frequently misdiagnosed. Much controversy exist regarding its aetiology. Embryologically, the occurrence of CMCC is thought to be due to many hypotheses that include impaired mid-line fusion of the first or second branchial arches, exteriorisation of a thyroglossal duct remnant, and or increased pressure in the cervical area from the pericardial roof in the developing embryo. His-tologically, the cleft usually consists of a stratified keratinized squamous epithelium with hyperkeratosis, dermal fibrosis and little or no skin appendages.Associated clini-cal features could include thyroglossal duct cysts,cleft lip/mandible/sternum,cervical contractures, mandibular spurs, microgenia and or bronchogenic cysts. In this article we present a patient with CMCC. An extensive review of the literature is also included. © 2003 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. Congenital mid-line cervical cleft (CMCC) is a rare congenital anomaly of the neck. Bailey [1] made the first description of this abnormality in 1924. However, until today it is a relatively unknown en-tity and there is much controversy on its aetiology. In this article we present a new case of mid-line cervical cleft and a review of the English litera-ture with a discussion on the incidence, aetiology, pathology and treatment of congenital mid-line cervical clefts. 1. Case report A 3-day-old Caucasian girl presented to the ENT clinic at the Montreal Children’s Hospital with a
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.116 | 0.052 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".