A comparison of outcomes in interventions for unilateral vocal fold paralysis: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To critically review current literature comparing interventional approaches for unilateral vocal fold paralysis. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of the literature. METHODS: All English-language literature published in the PubMed database was eligible for inclusion. Inclusion criteria were: 1) the major topic must be a direct comparison of outcomes in interventions for unilateral vocal fold paralysis, 2) the subjects were 18 years or older, and 3) it was original research. Studies involving treatment of bilateral vocal fold paralysis and nonprocedural interventions were excluded. Included studies were categorized according to level of evidence. Outcomes analyzed were acoustic and aerodynamic measures, auditory perceptive evaluation, laryngoscopic findings, and complications. RESULTS: Of the 504 studies retrieved from the search strategy, 17 studies met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Overall, four interventional approaches were used for treatment of unilateral vocal fold paralysis: medialization thyroplasty, injection laryngoplasty, arytenoid adduction, and laryngeal reinnervation. Aside from some select improvements in single outcome parameters, overall, the majority of studies show no difference in improvement of outcomes between techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Four surgical interventions for unilateral vocal fold paralysis are available for treatment of unilateral vocal cord paralysis. Multiple studies show favorable outcomes, but no significant differences between treatment arms based on perceptual, acoustic, quality of life, and laryngoscopic outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 126:1616-1624, 2016.
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 | 0.013 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".