Mucosal Wave Asymmetries in the Clinical Voice Laboratory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Anecdotally, it has been observed that in some healthy middle-aged men, who have neither vocal complaints nor known vocal pathology, asymmetries of the mucosal wave exist when examined videostroboscopically. This may cause concern on the part of the otolaryngologist, who might consider mucosal wave asymmetries to be a forewarning of subclinical pathology and subject the patient to unnecessary, expensive, and anxiety-provoking investigations or interventions. The purpose of this study is to establish the presence of mucosal wave asymmetries in a healthy, asymptomatic subpopulation. Acoustic spectral analysis is also used to determine if the presence of subharmonics might be associated. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, cohort study design was used. The population was randomly selected, healthy, asymptomatic, nonsmoking men aged 35 to 50 years. Each subject completed acoustic spectral analysis and a medical questionnaire, followed by videostroboscopic laryngeal examination. RESULTS: Thirty-seven percent of the subjects exhibited mucosal wave variations at stroboscopy, characterized as periodic lateral phase asymmetries. There was no association with the acoustic spectral parameters chosen. CONCLUSION: Mucosal wave asymmetries may be a variance of normal. The 37% found here is expected to be very significant. Mucosal wave asymmetries are likely to be far more common in the general population than previously believed. There have been few normative data published for variations of the mucosal wave specifically for epidemiologic purposes. These results establish a starting point and justification for the normative population studies under way at our institution. Clinically, in the absence of such data, otolaryngologists may overinterpret videostroboscopic findings, leading to unnecessary investigations or interventions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".