Relationship of vocal cord paralysis to the coil diameter of vagus nerve stimulator leads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECT: This investigation was done to examine, following implantation of vagus nerve stimulators, the relationship of vocal cord paralysis to the inner diameter of the coils used to attach the stimulator lead to the nerve. METHODS: All data in this investigation were collected, as mandated by the FDA, by the manufacturer of vagus nerve stimulators and were made available without restrictions for analysis by the authors. The data reflect all initial device implantations in the United States for the period from 1997 through 2012. RESULTS: Vocal cord paralysis was reported in 193 of 51,882 implantations. In patients aged 18 years and older, the incidence of paralysis was 0.26% when the stimulator leads had coil diameters of 3 mm and 0.51% when the leads had 2-mm-diameter coils (p < 0.05). Across all age groups, the incidence of vocal cord paralysis increased with age at implantation for leads having 2-mm-diameter coils. CONCLUSIONS: In patients aged 18 years and older, vocal cord paralysis occurred at almost twice the rate with the implantation of vagus nerve stimulator leads having 2-mm-diameter coils than with leads having 3-mm-diameter coils. The incidence of vocal cord paralysis increases with patient age at implantation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".