MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112971142 · doi:10.5507/bp.2009.033

USE OF FORMOTEROL IN THE TREATMENT OF STUTTERING. A PILOT STUDY

2009· article· en· W2112971142 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Josef Pešák, Jana Zapletalová, Tomáš Grézl

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Papers · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicStuttering Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStutteringFluencyMedicineWilcoxon signed-rank testPsychologyFormoterolMorningPhysical therapyAudiologyMann–Whitney U testAsthmaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Stuttering is a serious health and social problem that can distinctively affect not only the mental development of an individual but also his life possibilities, including social fulfilment and his general life prospects. The etiology of stuttering is however unknown and that is why it is not possible to treat it causally. This pilot study takes into account the hypothesis of bronchial constriction as a negative factor in stuttering and investigates the effect of the long-acting bronchodilator formoterol fumarate on stuttering in 42 patients. METHODS: Patients were divided in 2 groups - A (school children and juveniles) and B (adults 18-25 resistant to other treatment). The medicine was administered once a day in the morning in a dose of 12 microg for the total period of 6 months. The prime outcome parameter - severity of stuttering - was evaluated using the ordinary scale (McGill Pain Questionnaire). The evaluation was done by an examining physician during visits to the centres and by the patients themselves (in cases of the youngest with the assistance of a parent) in a daily diary. RESULTS: A non-parametric pair test (Wilcoxon signed rank test) was used to compare the average marks in the whole set of patients. During the six moth period of administration of Foradil the speech fluency improved. The average number of dysfluent words decreased from 10.5 +/- 1.3 to 6.6 +/-0.97. CONCLUSION: The average mark of speech fluency evaluated by the physicians between the period of non use of Foradil and the six month period after the use of Foradil improved from 2.95 +/- 0.76 to 1.95 +/- 0.56 (as proved by the chi-square test, p<0.0001). The evaluation of speech fluency of balbuties uses the logopedic practices. Other clinical evaluations of speech fluency are not known.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.801
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomedical PapersSame topicStuttering Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207