Selective Denervation: Reinnervation for the Control of Adductor Spasmodic Dysphonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".