MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081479463 · doi:10.2310/7070.2002.19138

Hyposmia Following Laryngectomy: Experimental Model

2002· article· en· W2081479463 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aviram Netzer, Avishay Golz, David M. Goldenberg, Michael Silberman, Henry Z. Joachims

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Otolaryngology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNasal Surgery and Airway Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHyposmiaOlfactory mucosaOlfactory nerveOlfactory systemMucous membrane of noseLaryngectomyPathologyRespiratory MucosaDenervationAnatomyLarynxOlfactory bulbAirwaySurgeryCentral nervous systemInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hyposmia following laryngectomy is a well-known clinical observation, yet the causes have been controversial for many years. In an attempt to resolve this issue, an animal model was constructed. Eighteen dogs were divided into three equal groups: control dogs, dogs that underwent tracheostomy, and dogs that underwent tracheostomy and denervation of the larynx, simulating total laryngectomy. Four to 6 months following these operations, biopsies from olfactory mucosa were taken. The results showed marked changes in the olfactory mucosa of the two test groups: cystic degeneration of secretory glands in the olfactory mucosa of the first group and involution of the olfactory mucosa, substituted by dense connective tissue and "ballooning" of olfactory nerve fibres in the second group. These findings suggest that the changes in olfactory mucosa are not only caused by a loss of nasal airway but also the existence of a neurologic connecting network between the vagus nerve and the olfactory cortex.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of OtolaryngologySame topicNasal Surgery and Airway StudiesFrench-language works237,207