Sensory outcomes of the anterior tongue after lingual nerve repair in oropharyngeal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Primary treatment of oropharyngeal cancer often involves surgical resection and reconstruction of the affected area. However, during base of tongue reconstruction the lingual nerve is often severed on one or both sides, affecting sensation in the preserved tissue of the anterior tongue. The loss of specific tongue sensations could negatively affect a person's oral function and quality of life. The aim of this study was to explore the effects of different types of lingual nerve intervention on sensory function for patients with base of tongue cancer as compared to healthy, age-matched adults. Subjects included 30 patients who had undergone primary oropharyngeal reconstruction with a radial forearm free-flap and 30 matched controls. Sensations tested were temperature, two-point discrimination, light touch, taste, oral stereognosis and texture on the anterior two-thirds of the tongue. Results indicated that type of surgical nerve repair may not have a significant impact on overall sensory outcomes, providing mixed results for either nerve repair technique. Sensations for the nonoperated tongue side and operated side with lingual nerve intact were comparable to matched controls, with mixed outcomes for nerve repair. The poorest sensory outcomes were observed in patients with the lingual nerve severed, while all patients with lingual nerve intervention exhibited deteriorated taste sensation on the affected tongue side. Overall, patients in this study who had undergone oropharyngeal reconstruction with lingual nerve intervention exhibited decreased levels of sensation on the operated tongue side, with minimal differences between types of lingual nerve repair.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".