High‐Speed Video or Video Stroboscopy in Adolescents: Which Sheds More Light?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to compare the utility of high-speed video (HSV) to videostroboscopy (VS) in the assessment of adolescents with normal and abnormal larynges. A secondary objective was to evaluate the ease of assessment of adolescents with HSV. STUDY DESIGN: Case series with chart review. SETTING: Tertiary academic health care center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This study involved a retrospective review of recordings of 7 adolescents assessed with both HSV and VS. The 14 recordings were randomized and presented to 4 groups of blinded evaluators: 2 fellowship-trained laryngologists, 2 speech language pathologists (SLP) with multiyear experience working in a voice clinic, 2 pediatric otolaryngologists, and 2 otolaryngology residents. Raters were asked to evaluate the videos using a standardized scoring tool. Raters also completed a questionnaire assessing their opinion of the HSV and VS recordings. RESULTS: Evaluators required more time to complete their assessment of VS recordings (2.95 min ± 2.41 min) than HSV recordings (2.31 min ± 1.92 min) (P = .004). There was no difference in ease of evaluation (P = .878) or diagnostic accuracy within evaluator groups by recording modality (P = .5). The overall agreement between VS and HSV was moderate (kappa [SE] = 0.446 [0.029]). The debrief questionnaire revealed that 5 of 8 (62.5%) preferred VS to HSV. CONCLUSION: This is the first comparative study between HSV and VS in patients under 18 years of age. HSV permitted faster evaluation than VS, but there was no difference in diagnostic accuracy between the 2 modalities. The evaluators preferred VS to HSV.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".