The Influence of Electrolarynx Use on Postlaryngectomy Voice‐Related Quality of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate voice-related quality of life in an effort to index self-assessed voice disability in speakers who use the electrolarynx and to determine the perceived level of influence of the electrolarynx on vocal communication. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: This study was conducted at a tertiary care facility. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Forty laryngectomized adults (25 men, 15 women) who used the electrolarynx as a primary method of communication served as participants. The Voice-Related Quality of Life measure was administered and scored in standard fashion and descriptive data generated for physical, social-emotional, and total scores. RESULTS: Data indicate substantial variability in self-perceived quality of life specific to voice use; a wide range of physical, social-emotional, and total scores were observed. Only one-quarter of these participants rated themselves as having "poor/fair" voice-related quality of life. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that use of the electrolarynx as a postlaryngectomy method of verbal communication has a wide-ranging influence on self-perceived voice-related quality of life and that mean scores from prior studies may not accurately reflect the potential value of the electrolarynx. Communication disability related to electrolarynx use does in fact vary; however, it is not uniformly poor, and some may be highly proficient users. Consequently, the Voice-Related Quality of Life measure may also serve as a useful tool for clinical documentation of rehabilitation outcomes in those who use the electrolarynx as a postlaryngectomy method of speech.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".