Current dysphonia trends in patients over the age of 65: Is vocal atrophy becoming more prevalent?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The current trends in geriatric voice referrals including the number of patients over the age of 65 years seen per year, the common diagnostic patterns, and specifically the number of patients with vocal atrophy were assessed. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all patients seen at the Emory Voice Center for otolaryngologic complaints between the years of 2004 and 2009 was performed. RESULTS: Of the 6,360 patients seen over a 6-year period, 21% were over the age of 65 years. Fifty-eight percent of patients over the age of 65 years had vocal complaints, with the most common diagnoses being vocal atrophy (25%), neurologic vocal dysfunction (23%), and vocal fold immobility (19.2%). Of those patients diagnosed with vocal atrophy, the majority opted for voice therapy (57%), followed by reassurance (39%), and injection laryngoplasty (6%). There was a statistically significant improvement in mean pretherapy and post-therapy voice-related quality of life (VRQOL) score. CONCLUSIONS: As the number of people in the over 65-year-old age bracket increases, so do the number of geriatric referrals. Although diagnostic trends remain the same, vocal atrophy is becoming more prevalent, with a large number of patients seeking intervention. This will likely result in an increased need for health resources in the future.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".