Voice Outcomes from Subligamentous Cordectomy for Early Glottic Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the voice and vocal fold pliability outcomes of European Laryngological Society (ELS) deep type I (subepithelial) and type II (subligamentous) cordectomies for early glottic cancer. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of patients with glottic carcinoma at a tertiary care medical center between 2005 and 2011. Their procedures were stratified into ELS type I and ELS type II cordectomies. The data recorded included age, gender, tumor stage, recurrence, patient-assessed voice-related quality of life, perceptual voice evaluation, and stroboscopy. RESULTS: Four patients were identified as having subepithelial cordectomy, and 13 as having subligamentous cordectomy. The average preoperative and postoperative voice-related quality of life scores were 65 and 74 for the ELS I cohort and 64 and 95 for the ELS II group. The preoperative and postoperative perceptual voice evaluation scores were 56 and 35 for the ELS I cohort and 45 and 21 for the ELS II cohort. The ELS I cohort had a moderately to severely reduced mucosal wave, with 75% of patients demonstrating glottic insufficiency, whereas the ELS II cohort had a mildly to moderately reduced mucosal wave, with 8% of patients demonstrating glottic insufficiency. The survival outcomes were the same. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent subligamentous excision of early glottic cancer had significantly improved postoperative voice and stroboscopy scores. This finding suggests that if tumor resection reaches the vocal ligament, and minimal superficial lamina propria can be preserved, subligamentous cordectomy should be performed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".