Auditory‐Perceptual Speech Outcomes and Quality of Life after Total Laryngectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: (1) To determine potential relationships between speech intelligibility, acceptability, and self-reported quality of life (QOL) after total laryngectomy and (2) to determine whether relationships are stronger when QOL is measured by a head and neck cancer-specific or discipline-specific QOL scale. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: University-based laboratory and speech clinic. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Twenty-five laryngectomized individuals completed disease-specific (University of Washington Quality of Life; UW-QOL) and discipline-specific (Voice Handicap Index-10; VHI-10) QOL scales. They also provided audio recordings that included the Sentence Intelligibility Test (SIT) and a reading passage. Thirty-three listeners transcribed the SIT sentences to yield intelligibility scores. Fifteen additional listeners judged speech acceptability of the reading passage using rating scales. RESULTS: The QOL scores were moderate across the UW-QOL physical (mean = 77.63) and social-emotional (mean = 78.02) subscales and the VHI-10 (mean = 17.91). Speech acceptability and intelligibility varied across the samples, with acceptability only moderately related to intelligibility (r = 0.41, P < .05). Relationships were weak between ratings of intelligibility and self-reported QOL (range, r = 0.00-0.22) and weak to moderate between acceptability with QOL (range, r = 0.01-0.46). The only statistically significant, but moderate, relationship was found between speech acceptability with the UW-QOL speech subscore (r = 0.46, P < .05). CONCLUSION: Listeners' ratings of speech acceptability and intelligibility were not strongly predictive of disease-specific or voice-related QOL, suggesting that listener-rated and patient-reported outcomes are complementary.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".