The relationship between communicative participation and postlaryngectomy speech outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine relationships between communicative participation and postlaryngectomy speech outcomes, including listener-rated speech intelligibility and acceptability, and patient-rated speech acceptability and voice handicap. METHODS: Thirty-six laryngectomized individuals completed the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB) short form and the Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10). They provided recordings from the Sentence Intelligibility Test (SIT) and a reading passage, and rated their own speech acceptability. Forty-eight inexperienced listeners transcribed the SIT sentences to derive intelligibility scores. Eighteen additional listeners judged the speech acceptability using the rating scales. RESULTS: Listeners judged tracheoesophageal speakers as significantly more intelligible and acceptable than electrolaryngeal speakers (p < .05). Speech acceptability was significantly more acceptable to speakers than listeners (p < .05). Weak, nonsignificant relationships were found between communicative participation and listener-rated outcomes. Stronger, significant relationships were found between communicative participation and self-rated speech acceptability and voice handicap (p < .05). CONCLUSION: Patient-reported communication outcomes are complementary to listener-rated outcomes. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 38: E1955-E1961, 2016.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".