MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Vocal Function Following Radiation for Non‐Laryngeal Versus Laryngeal Tumors of the Head and Neck

2001· article· en· W2033281779 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Laryngoscope · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVoice and Speech Disorders
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLarynxPhonationMedicineAudiologyVocal foldsElectroglottographSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The larynx may receive high doses of radiation even in the absence of disease. Preliminary investigation has provided evidence that significant voice alterations exist in patients who received radiotherapy (RT) for non-laryngeal tumors of the head and neck. This study evaluates subjective and objective parameters of vocal function in this patient population compared with a control group of patients irradiated for early glottic tumors. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Vocal function in patients irradiated for non-laryngeal and early glottic tumors was assessed in a comprehensive manner and compared. Microanalytical and macroanalytical acoustic analyses, aerodynamic measurements, and videostroboscopy were performed on vowel production data. The Voice Handicap Index was administered for self-assessment of voice quality. All subjects were male, smokers, and greater than 12 months post-RT. RESULTS: Seventeen patients with non-laryngeal tumors and 13 patients with early glottic tumors were evaluated. Microanalytical acoustic parameters were worse for 75% (6 of 8) of the acoustic measures of vowel production in the non-laryngeal group. These include jitter, relative amplitude perturbation, amplitude perturbation quotient, normalized noise energy, pitch amplitude, and spectral flatness ratio. Macroanalytical acoustic analyses revealed no difference in fundamental frequency but numerically smaller phonational frequency range in the non-laryngeal group. All aerodynamic measures, including mean phonation time, mean airflow, and vocal fold diadochokinetic rate, were decreased in the non-laryngeal group. Videostroboscopy demonstrated increased supraglottic activity in the non-laryngeal group. Voice handicap was significantly greater in the non-laryngeal group. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with patients receiving RT for early glottic tumors, there is objective and subjective evidence of vocal dysfunction in patients treated with wide-field RT for non-laryngeal tumors.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it