The Influence of Electrolarynx Use on Postlaryngectomy Voice‐Related Quality of Life
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it