Die Rolle des Geschlechts bei stimmlicher Rehabilitation und emotionalem Befinden nach Laryngektomie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Data on psychosocial factors of laryngectomized women is rare. All means of alaryngeal voice production sound male due to low fundamental frequency and roughness, which makes postlaryngectomy voice rehabilitation especially challenging to women. Aim of this study was to investigate whether women use alaryngeal speech more seldomly and therefore are more emotionally distressed. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a cross-sectional multi-centred study 12 female and 138 male laryngectomees were interviewed. To identify risc factors on seldom use of alaryngeal speech and emotional functioning, logistic regression was used and odds ratios were adjusted to age, time since laryngectomy, physical functioning, social activity and feelings of stigmatization. RESULTS: Esophageal speech was used by 83% of the female and 57% of the male patients, prosthetic speech was used by 17% of the female and 20% of the male patients and electrolaryngeal speech was used by 17% of the female and 29% of the male patients. There was a higher risk for laryngectomees to be more emotionally distressed when feeling physically bad (OR=2,48; p=0,02) or having feelings of stigmatization (OR=3,94; p≤0,00). Besides more women tended to be socially active than men (83% vs. 54%; p=0,05). CONCLUSIONS: There was no influence of sex neither on use of alaryngeal speech nor on emotional functioning. Since there is evidence for a different psychosocial adjustment in laryngectomized men and women, more investigation including bigger sample sizes will be needed on this special issue.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".