Table 5. Regression models.

	Coefficient	SE	p value	95% CI, LL	95% CI, UL	p value of the model	R2	Adjusted R2
En face, Professional raters
gender (1, male; 2, female)	3.46	5.42	0.526	−7.38	14.29	0.886	0.03	−0.05
group (1, Warsaw; 2, Prague; 3, Bratislava)	−0.65	4.12	0.874	−8.89	7.59
age at lip repair	−2.68	7.40	0.719	−17.49	12.13
surgeon	0.01	1.23	0.996	−2.46	2.47
age at photo assessment	1.63	1.58	0.305	−1.53	4.79
Constans	76.68	23.13	0.002	30.40	122.95
En face, Laypeople
gender (1, male; 2, female)	2.53	3.61	0.486	−4.70	9.76	0.731	0.05	−0.04
group (1, Warsaw; 2, Prague; 3, Bratislava)	−3.09	2.75	0.266	−8.58	2.41
age at lip repair	−2.03	4.94	0.682	−11.91	7.85
surgeon	0.24	0.82	0.776	−1.41	1.88
age at photo assessment	0.48	1.05	0.649	−1.63	2.59
Constans	84.30	15.43	0.000	53.43	115.17
Profile, Professional raters
gender (1, male; 2, female)	5.85	4.76	0.224	−3.68	15.38	0.670	0.05	−0.03
group (1, Warsaw; 2, Prague; 3, Bratislava)	1.99	3.62	0.584	−5.25	9.24
age at lip repair	−3.47	6.51	0.596	−16.49	9.55
surgeon	−1.34	1.08	0.221	−3.51	0.83
age at photo assessment	0.8	1.39	0.567	−1.98	3.57
Constans	101	20.34	0.000	60.31	141.69
Profile, Laypeople
gender (1, male; 2, female)	−2.52	4.45	0.573	−11.42	6.38	0.733	0.05	−0.04
group (1, Warsaw; 2, Prague; 3, Bratislava)	−2.08	3.38	0.541	−8.85	4.69
age at lip repair	−0.3	6.08	0.961	−12.47	11.87
surgeon	0.79	1.01	0.441	−1.24	2.81
age at photo assessment	0.85	1.30	0.515	−1.74	3.44
Constans	97.44	19	0.000	59.42	135.45