The relationship between lingual and hypoglossal nerve function and quality of life in head and neck cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sensorimotor impairment of the tongue has the potential to affect speech and swallowing. The purpose of this study was to critically examine the effects of nerve preservation and reinnervation after reconstruction of the base of tongue on patient-perceived outcomes of quality of life (QoL) related to speech and swallowing through completion of the EORTC QLQ-H&N35 standardised questionnaire. Thirty participants with a diagnosis of base of tongue cancer underwent primary resection and reconstruction with a radial forearm free flap, which may or may not have included nerve repair to the lingual nerve, hypoglossal nerve or both. Eight QoL domains sensitive to changes in motor and sensory nerve function were included in the analysis. Transected lingual and hypoglossal nerves were associated with difficulty in swallowing, social eating, dry mouth and social contact. There were fewer problems reported when these nerves were either repaired or left intact. There were no significant differences between patient nerve status and QoL outcomes for speech, sticky saliva and use of feeding tubes. This study was the first to examine the impact of sensory or motor nerve transection and reconstruction on health-related QoL outcomes.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".