MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069213481 · doi:10.1007/s00268-003-7107-4

Postlaryngectomy Voice Rehabilitation: State of the Art at the Millennium

2003· review· en· W2069213481 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Surgery · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVoice and Speech Disorders
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVascular surgeryCardiothoracic surgeryRehabilitationAbdominal surgeryMedicineState (computer science)Cardiac surgerySurgeryPhysical therapyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Total laryngectomy or laryngopharyngectomy remains the procedure of choice for advanced laryngeal/hypopharyngeal carcinoma, either as a primary procedure or as salvage following irradiation alone or concurrent chemoradiation therapy. Over the past 25 years there has been significant improvement in the rehabilitation of these patients, with speech restoration that has dramatically altered and improved their quality of life. This article reviews postlaryngectomy voice rehabilitation with a historical background as well as the present state-of-the-art tracheoesophageal shunt voice with an artificial valve. Finally, this article reviews and compares artificial valve prostheses as to their voice characteristics, patient satisfaction, complications associated with the procedure, and devices used at a center in Europe (The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam) and a North American center (The Wharton Head and Neck Center, Princess Margaret Hospital, University of Toronto, Canada).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.429
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.269 · 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