A longitudinal acoustic study of the effects of the radial forearm free flap reconstruction on sibilants produced by tongue cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acoustic properties of 980 tokens of sibilants /s, z, ƒ/ produced by 17 Canadian English-speaking female and male tongue cancer patients were studied. The patients had undergone tongue resection and tongue reconstruction with a radial forearm free flap (RFFF). The spectral moments (mean, skewness) and frication duration were analysed in connected speech samples produced before the tongue resection, and 1, 6 and 12 months after the surgery. The effects of radiation therapy (RT) and inclusion of the floor of the mouth (FOM) were also studied. Acoustic changes were observed only on alveolar sibilants /s, z/ such that speech was found to improve towards normal over the 1-year period. The reduction of acoustic distinction between /s, z/ and /ƒ/ was short term. A history of RT and involvement of the FOM had no differing effects on outcomes compared with non-RT or non-FOM. Variability between individuals was found, accentuating the speaker-specific abilities for adaptation, compensation and relearning after oral reconstruction.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".