Effects of Head and Neck Radiation Therapy on Vocal Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Radiotherapy (RT) is used to treat a variety of head and neck malignancies. The larynx may receive high radiation doses even in the absence of disease. The effects of RT on the nondiseased larynx are unknown. This study will evaluate subjective and objective parameters of vocal function in patients treated with RT for nonlaryngeal malignancies. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study. METHODS: Videostroboscopic, aerodynamic, and acoustic analyses were performed. Results were compared to age- and gender-matched controls. Self-assessment of voice quality was measured using the Voice Handicap Index. RESULTS: A majority of patients demonstrated increased supraglottal activity (i.e., ventricular fold constriction) during stroboscopic evaluation. Significant differences compared to normative data were found in many aerodynamic and acoustic parameters. A substantial proportion (27%) of patients reported significant voice handicap. Younger patients reported greater handicap, and voice quality was worse with time. CONCLUSIONS: Significant objective and subjective changes in vocal function occur in patients radiated for nonlaryngeal head and neck malignancies. Young patients may have the worst impact, and vocal dysfunction may increase with time. A prospective study of this patient population should include a baseline voice quality assessment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".