Patient Perception of Speech Outcomes: The Relationship Between Clinical Measures and Self-Perception of Speech Function Following Surgical Treatment for Oral Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Treatment for oral cancer can result in speech impairments that can have varying impacts on patient quality of life. This study explored the relationship between clinical measures of speech impairment and the perception that patients had of this change in the early stage of recovery. METHOD: This was a quasi-experimental 1-group pre-post study design carried out on 10 patients with surgical intervention for oral cancer. Two clinical measures (word intelligibility and consonant phoneme error) and 2 patient-perception measures (Speech Handicap Index total score and Speech Handicap Index patient criteria score) were collected at preoperative and 1-month postoperative appointments. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis revealed discordance between clinical and patient-perceived measures in 4 of 10 patients. Change in consonant phoneme error and change in word intelligibility were significantly correlated (r = .827). Furthermore, on average, statistically significant relationships were not found between clinical and patient-perceived measures or between the 2 patient-perception measures. CONCLUSIONS: Discordance between clinical and patient-perceived measures was observed in almost half of the sample, indicating that clinical tests did not fully explain the extent of impairment perceived by patients. Speech outcomes should focus on both types of measures, and patient perception outcomes should be carefully considered when recommending speech therapy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".