Management of drooling in individuals with neurodisability: a surgical experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From 1975 to 1 January 1999, 1103 neurologically involved patients (mean age 13.2 years; 686 males, 417 females) referred with problematic drooling, or sialorrhea, were assessed at a pediatric rehabilitation center by a team consisting of an otolaryngologist, speech pathologist, and a dentist. The initial standard treatment for persistent sialorrhea (in the compliant or aware patient) is oral-motor training. A group of 522 patients with persistent significant drooling after a minimum of 6 months of oral-motor training, or profuse drooling in the presence of a low cognitive level, underwent surgery, usually when over 6 years of age. From 1978 to 1 January 1998, the operation of first choice was submandibular duct relocation (SDR), and was completed in a total of 226 patients. Midway through 1988, sublingual gland excision was also completed at the time of submandibular duct relocation (SDRSGE); 249 of these procedures have been completed to January 1st 1999. Those patients who had SDRSGE had significantly fewer complications that required additional surgery than those that had SDR only. However, the impact of surgery on the drooling as evaluated in subsets of both groups (SDR n=115, SDRSGE n=106) was statistically similar. The study of 11 children with salivary gland radionuclitide scans to determine the effect of submandibular duct surgery on gland function was inconclusive. The pattern of oral-motor function in 26 children studied after SDRSGE surgery suggested that those children with severe impairment of volitional motor function and profuse drooling tended to have a poorer outcome following surgery compared to those with milder impairments.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".