MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2622657213 · doi:10.1017/s0022215117001220

Blunt laryngeal trauma secondary to sporting injuries

2017· review· en· W2622657213 on OpenAlexaff
D. A. Mendis, Jennifer Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Laryngology & Otology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma Management and Diagnosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBluntBlunt traumaMedicineGeneral surgeryMedical emergencySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Laryngeal injury after blunt trauma is uncommon, but can cause catastrophic airway obstruction and significant morbidity in voice and airway function. This paper aims to discuss a case series of sports-related blunt laryngeal trauma patients and describe the results of a thorough literature review. METHOD: Retrospective case-based analysis of laryngeal trauma referrals over six years to a tertiary laryngology centre. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients were identified; 13 (46 per cent) sustained sports-related trauma. Most were young males, presenting with dysphonia, some with airway compromise (62 per cent). Nine patients were diagnosed with a laryngeal fracture. Four patients were managed conservatively and nine underwent surgery. Post-treatment, the majority of patients achieved good voice outcomes (83 per cent) and all had normal airway function. CONCLUSION: Sports-related neck trauma can cause significant injury to the laryngeal framework and endolaryngeal soft tissues, and most cases require surgical intervention. Clinical presentation may be subtle; a systematic approach along with a high index of suspicion is essential, as early diagnosis and treatment have been reported to improve airway and voice outcome.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Laryngology & OtologySame topicTrauma Management and DiagnosisFrench-language works237,207