Speech outcomes after soft palate reconstruction with the soft palate insufficiency repair procedure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background. Measurement of functional outcomes related to different methods of soft palate reconstruction is necessary to determine efficacy of surgical intervention after resection for oropharyngeal cancer. Methods. Speech data were collected across 4 evaluation times for 4 groups of patients (2 groups consisted of patients with ≤ half the soft palate resected followed by conventional reconstruction; 2 groups consisted of patients with half or more of the soft palate resected followed by reconstruction with an adhesion or the soft palate insufficiency repair (SPIR). Results. Sixty‐two patients were included. Speech was preserved when conventional reconstructive procedures were used to close smaller defects. For larger defects, reconstruction with an adhesion resulted in poorer speech outcomes than the SPIR. The SPIR group achieved normal speech results at all points of evaluation. Conclusions. The results demonstrate that the SPIR is emerging as an efficacious surgical technique for reconstruction of larger soft palate defects. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck, 2008
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".