Children's congenital heart disease: study of orofacial myofunctional aspects, feeding behavior and facial temperature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To characterize and relate the eating behavior, myofunctional orofacial conditions and speech, with the facial temperature of children with congenital heart disease. Method: This is a cross-sectional case-control study. The sample consisted of 30 children with heart disease (5.48 ± 0.84 years) and 28 healthy children (4.98 ± 0.64 years), matched by sex and age. The food behavior assessment questionnaire (Montreal Pediatric Hospital Feeding Scale - MCH-FS - Portuguese Version) was applied, validated AMIOFE-E protocol for orofacial myofunctional evaluation, speech evaluation using the Children's Language Test (ABFW) , and finally an evaluation of the facial temperature, where the therananatomic points were analyzed: temporal, supratrochlear, medial palpebral commissure, lateral eyelid commissure, nasolabial, labial commissure and lower lip, on the right and left sides of the face. For statistical analysis, we applied: Student's T-test, chi-square of homogeneity, logistic regression and Pearson's Linear Correlation test. Results: Feeding behavior did not present a statistically significant difference between the control and cardiopathy groups (cyanotic and acyanotic). There was no effect of age and sex on the mean temperature and the thermal difference of the facial thermoanatomic points. However, when submitted to procedures (surgery and catheterization) the temperature was hyperradiant at the CPM thermoanatomical point. There were myofunctional orofacial alterations regarding the appearance / posture of the structures, mental muscle with contraction and hard palate (narrow / deep); mandibular and cheek mobility, swallowing, breathing and speech functions. Presence of correlation between facial temperature and AMIOFE-E protocol for CL D and E and LI D and E. Conclusions: Children with congenital heart disease presented similar eating behavior to healthy children in their parents' perception, hyperradiant facial temperature at CPM when submitted to an interventional procedure. Myofunctional orofacial aspects evidenced changes in posture / position, mobility and functions. There was a correlation between the average temperature of the thermotomatric points of CL D and E, LI D and E, with the sum category of AMIOFE-E protocol functions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".