Bilateral vocal fold immobility: A 13 year review of etiologies, management and the utility of the empey index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bilateral vocal fold immobility (BVFI) is a rare diagnosis causing dyspnea, dysphonia and dysphagia. Management depends on respiratory performance, airway patency, vocal ability, and quality-of-life priorities. The authors review the presentation, management and outcome in patients diagnosed with BVFI. The utility and efficacy of the Empey index (EI) and the Expiratory Disproportion Index (EDI) are evaluated as an objective monitoring tools for BVFI patients. METHODS: A 13-year retrospective review was performed of BVFI patients at St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, a tertiary referral centre for laryngology. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were included; 46 presented with airway obstruction symptoms. Tracheotomy was required for airway management in 40% of patients throughout the course of their treatment, which was reduced to 19% at the end of the study period. Twenty-one patients underwent endoscopic arytenoidectomy/cordotomy. Non-operative management included continuous positive airway pressure devices. Pulmonary function testing was carried out in 29 patients. Only a portion of the BVFI patients met the defined upper airway obstruction criteria (45% EI and 52% EDI). Seven patients had complete pre- and post-operative PFTs for comparison and all seven had ratios that significantly improved post-operatively which correlated clinically. CONCLUSION: The EI and EDI have limited use in evaluating patients with who have variable upper airway obstruction, but may be helpful in monitoring within subject airway function changes.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".