Voice‐related quality of life (V‐RQOL) outcomes in laryngectomees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laryngeal cancer has a significant impact on patients. This study compared the Voice-Related Quality of Life (V-RQOL) outcomes specific to 3 different postlaryngectomy voice rehabilitation methods. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 75 patients with laryngectomy from our V-RQOL questionnaire database. RESULTS: The database included 18 electrolaryngeal speech (ELS), 15 esophageal speech (ES), and 42 tracheoesophageal speech (TES) patients. Pairwise comparisons of V-RQOL outcomes showed that TES was perceived to be better than ELS (p < .001). ES was perceived as better than ELS, but this was driven by a difference in the total and social-emotional V-RQOL scores (p < .05). There was no difference between TES and ES groups. Only ELS showed a positive correlation with time after surgery and older age. CONCLUSIONS: Patients using TES had similar V-RQOL outcomes compared to ES and both performed significantly better than ELS. For ELS, the total V-RQOL score was better with longer time after surgery and older age.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".