MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Innovative Technology for the Assisted Delivery of Intensive Voice Treatment (LSVT<sup>®</sup>LOUD) for Parkinson Disease

2012· article· en· W2049581078 on OpenAlexaff
Angela Halpern, Lorraine O. Ramig, Carlos E. C. Matos, Jill A. Petska-Cable, Jennifer Spielman, Janice M. Pogoda, Phillip M. Gilley, Shimon Sapir, John K. Bennett, David H. McFarland

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVoice and Speech Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
KeywordsDysarthriaParkinson's diseaseAudiologyUsabilityMedicineIntervention (counseling)Randomized controlled trialPsychologyPhysical therapyDiseaseComputer scienceSurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility and effectiveness of a newly developed assistive technology system, Lee Silverman Voice Treatment Companion (LSVT(®) Companion™, hereafter referred to as "Companion"), to support the delivery of LSVT(®)LOUD, an efficacious speech intervention for individuals with Parkinson disease (PD). METHOD: Sixteen individuals with PD were randomized to an immediate (n = 8) or a delayed (n = 8) treatment group. They participated in 9 LSVT LOUD sessions and 7 Companion sessions, independently administered at home. Acoustic, listener perception, and voice and speech rating data were obtained immediately before (pre), immediately after (post), and at 6 months post treatment (follow-up). System usability ratings were collected immediately post treatment. Changes in vocal sound pressure level were compared to data from a historical treatment group of individuals with PD treated with standard, in-person LSVT LOUD. RESULTS: All 16 participants were able to independently use the Companion. These individuals had therapeutic gains in sound pressure level, pre to post and pre to follow-up, similar to those of the historical treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the use of the Companion as an aid in treatment of hypokinetic dysarthria in individuals with PD. Advantages and disadvantages of the Companion, as well as limitations of the present study and directions for future studies, are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.309
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations95
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Speech-Language PathologySame topicVoice and Speech DisordersFrench-language works237,207