MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092040205 · doi:10.2310/7070.2003.40431

Selective Denervation: Reinnervation for the Control of Adductor Spasmodic Dysphonia

2003· article· en· W2092040205 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Michael Allegretto, Murray Morrison, Linda Rammage, David P. Lau

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Otolaryngology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVoice and Speech Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReinnervationSpasmodic dysphoniaDenervationSurgeryOtorhinolaryngologyAdductor musclesBotulinum toxinAnesthesiaRecurrent laryngeal nerveAnatomyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a new surgical procedure for adductor spasmodic dysphonia (AddSD). This surgery involves the bilateral selective division of the adductor branches of the recurrent laryngeal nerves with immediate reinnervation of the distal nerve trunks with branches of the ansa cervicalis (selective denervation-reinnervation). METHODS: Our first six patients to undergo this procedure were enrolled in the study. All patients suffered from AddSD and had previously received botulinum toxin A (Botox, Allergen, Markham, ON) therapy. Patients were recorded preoperatively and all underwent the same surgical procedure performed by the same lead surgeon. All patients were surveyed postoperatively and then re-recorded. Expert and untrained judges undertook perceptual evaluation of voice quality. Voice samples were also objectively evaluated for aphonic voice breaks. RESULTS: No major surgical complications were noted. Patient satisfaction was excellent, and five of the six patients no longer require botulinum toxin therapy. In five of the six patients, the majority of untrained and expert listeners perceived the postoperative voice to be superior. Objectively, the rate of aphonic voice breaks was also reduced in five of the six patients.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations25
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of OtolaryngologySame topicVoice and Speech DisordersFrench-language works237,207