Exudative Laryngeal Diseases of Reinke's Space: A Clinicohistopathological Framing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To establish the relationship between the macroscopic and histologic diagnosis of nodules, polyps, and Reinke's edema of the true vocal folds and to propose a clearer clinical definition of them in the hope of settling the difference of opinion between otolaryngologists and pathologists. DESIGN: Retrospective study SETTING: Otolaryngology Department of "La Sapienza" University of Rome. METHODS: The pathologic reports of 203 patients subjected to direct laryngoscopy were studied. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Examination of the histologic specimen of the epithelium and the chorion. RESULTS: Microscopic examination revealed a high percentage of normal epithelium both for nodules (33.79%) and polyps (40.65%). No dysplasia was observed, whereas dysplasia was present in 10 cases of Reinke's edema (7 laryngeal intraepithelial neoplasia 1 and 3 laryngeal intraepithelial neoplasia II). Five different stages of histologic progression resulted from the examination of the chorion in both nodules and polyps. CONCLUSIONS: Our suggestion is to consider polyps as "older" lesions and nodules as "younger" lesions. A polyp may be defined as an abnormal unilateral growth of vocal folds, a nodule as a bilateral growth situated between the anterior and medium third of the vocal fold, and Reinke's edema as a bilateral wound that extends to the whole of the true vocal fold.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".