Laryngeal candidiasis in the outpatient setting.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We present the largest case series on laryngeal candidiasis and review the literature on the diagnosis and management of laryngeal candidiasis. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Fifty-four patients were included in a retrospective chart review of all cases seen at the Pacific Voice Clinic, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, from 1995 to 2005. RESULTS: The most common presenting symptom was dysphonia (37 patients; 69%). Forty-eight patients (89%) were on steroid inhalers, and four patients (7%) were on oral prednisone. In terms of anatomic involvement, 18 patients (33%) showed Candida involvement in all three anatomic locations: the hypopharynx, the supraglottis, and the glottis. In 15 patients (28%), the Candida was isolated to the glottis. The remaining patients showed subglottic and glottic involvement. Fifty-two patients (96%) were successfully treated with a single course of an oral antifungal. CONCLUSION: The most common risk factor identified was inhaled steroids. Most often, laryngeal candidiasis is effectively treated with oral antifungal medications.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".