Speech after radial forearm free flap reconstruction of the tongue: A longitudinal acoustic study of vowel and diphthong sounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to use acoustic analyses to describe speech outcomes over the course of 1 year after radial forearm free flap (RFFF) reconstruction of the tongue. Eighteen Canadian English-speaking females and males with reconstruction for oral cancer had speech samples recorded (pre-operative, and 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year post-operative). Acoustic characteristics of formants (F1, F2), fundamental frequency (F0), and duration of 699 vowel and diphthong tokens were analysed. Furthermore, the changes in size of the vowel space area were studied, as well as the effects of radiation therapy (RT) and inclusion of the floor of the mouth (FOM) in the reconstruction. RFFF reconstruction was found to affect several characteristics in males, and a minimal number of variables in females. General signs of reduced ability to articulate were not observed. RT and FOM had no differing effects compared to non-RT or non-FOM. There were individual differences between patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".