Functional Outcomes After Primary Oropharyngeal Cancer Resection and Reconstruction With the Radial Forearm Free Flap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report prospectively collected aeromechanical, acoustical, and perceptual speech outcomes, as well as preliminary swallowing data, in patients having reconstruction with radial forearm free flaps after primary resection for oropharyngeal cancer. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: Acoustical, aeromechanical, and perceptual speech data and swallowing data were gathered at three evaluation times (preoperatively and before and after radiation therapy) for patients treated for oropharyngeal cancer by means of primary resection and reconstruction with a radial forearm free flap. Degree of involvement of the soft palate and base of tongue, along with reconstructive techniques, were entered as between-group factors in the analysis. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in speech intelligibility between the patient groups based on the degree of palate and tongue resected. However, patients with resections of half or more than half of the soft palate had significantly higher nasalance values and larger velopharyngeal orifice areas than individuals who had less than half of the soft palate resected. Significant within-subject differences were revealed across evaluation times for the dependent variables nasalance, velopharyngeal orifice area, and word intelligibility. Ninety-four percent of the patients were able to resume a normal or soft diet. There was a 6% incidence of aspiration in 128 swallows that were analyzed. The amount of base of tongue resected did not significantly affect any of the speech or swallowing parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Radial forearm free flaps are a good reconstructive option after oropharyngeal cancer extirpation. Our acoustic and aeromechanical results indicated that issues related to quality of the speech signal require further study for resections of half or more than half of the soft palate.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".