Quantitative three‐dimensional ultrasound analysis of tongue protrusion, grooving and symmetry: Data from 12 normal speakers and a partial glossectomee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The functional determinants for a good speech outcome after a partial tongue resection and reconstruction are not well established. The purpose of the present study was to assess the protrusion, grooving and symmetry of the tongue during sustained speech sound production using three-dimensional ultrasound. The participants were twelve normal speakers and one partial glossectomee. The three-dimensional ultrasound volumes of nine sustained speech sounds were measured in three sagittal planes. The data were re-plotted as three-dimensional surfaces. We calculated an anteriority index, a concavity index and an asymmetry index. The glossectomee's postoperative surface plots were characterized by asymmetry and convexity of the tongue surface. The anteriority index illustrated that the glossectomee's ability to protrude her tongue was not affected by the operation. The concavity index captured a decrease in midsagittal grooving in the glossectomee's tongue. The asymmetry index demonstrated height differences in the elevation of the right and left side of the tongue. We conclude that three-dimensional ultrasound offers us a practical tool for the detailed and concise assessment of the lingual shape and deformation in patients undergoing glossectomy surgery.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".