Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endoscopic laryngeal web formation has been used to elevate the speaking voice, primarily in male to female transsexuals as part of gender reassignment intervention. The goal of this article is to review the literature regarding surgical treatment for pitch elevation and to describe a novel method of laryngeal web formation. The results of this technique are also reported in a series of six patients. All patients were assessed and treated at the St. Michael's Hospital Voice Disorders Clinic, a tertiary referral centre for voice disorders. Pre- and postoperative voice recordings, acoustic analysis, and videostroboscopic examinations were performed in this series. The acoustic data collected included isolated vowel samples, a reading task, and a modified voice range profile. The patients all underwent successful endoscopic web formation with a Gelfoam augmentation technique. The voice results collected at least 6 months after vocal fold web formation demonstrate a dramatic increase in the habitual speaking fundamental frequency. This new modification for endoscopic web formation has been shown to be a successful procedure for permanent elevation of pitch with little or no morbidity.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".