MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152489878 · doi:10.1080/140154302760409293

Hidden respiratory allergies in voice users: treatment strategies

2002· article· en· W2152489878 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLogopedics Phoniatrics Vocology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusicians’ Health and Performance
Canadian institutionsLakeshore General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAllergyLarynxLaryngitisDesensitization (medicine)AirwayAsthmaDermatologyAnesthesiaImmunologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The treatment of the allergic voice patient may be somewhat different than other voice patients. Antihistamines are generally avoided, though decongestants with Guaifenesin may be useful. Steroids are more useful in perennial allergic systems. Steroids may be inhaled nasally, inhaled orally, or given systemically. Systemic steroids are especially useful for a performer who needs quick relief. We strongly feel that vocalists with chronic laryngitis and dysphonia should be allergy tested. A hidden dust mite or cat dander allergy is often found. A clean indoor environment can then be established. Immunotherapy injections can also be initiated. Both of these treatments, desensitization injections and environmental control, are especially useful in vocalists. These treatments are helpful in keeping a vocalist's trachea, larynx, and nasal cavity healthy. A careful search for mild asthma should be considered. Establishing good vocal hygiene and voice training may also be necessary.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it