Clinical characteristics of laryngeal versus nonlaryngeal amyloidosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Amyloidosis represents a heterogeneous group of disorders marked by abnormal protein formation and deposition. Laryngeal amyloidosis is rare and classically thought to remain isolated with little risk of systemic involvement or associated malignancy. This study sought to further characterize differences in clinical characteristics between patients with laryngeal and nonlaryngeal amyloidosis. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study. METHODS: tests were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Of 865 patients treated for amyloidosis between 1996 and 2016, 22 (2.5%) patients with biopsy-proven laryngeal amyloidosis were identified. An additional 22 patients with amyloidosis of a different organ and negative laryngoscopy-and therefore without laryngeal amyloidosis-were identified as controls. Compared to these controls with nonlaryngeal amyloidosis, patients with laryngeal amyloidosis were younger (mean age 52.8 years vs. 68.4 years, P < .0006), and 18% had additional organ involvement. Immunoglobulin light-chain amyloidosis was the most common subtype in both groups of patients. Eighty-six percent of patients with laryngeal amyloidosis required surgical excision, and of these patients, over 30% required multiple excisions. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant rate (18%) of multiorgan involvement in patients with laryngeal amyloidosis, which contradicts conventional concepts that this is an isolated disorder. This finding could have a significant impact on the evaluation and management of patients with laryngeal amyloidosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3b. Laryngoscope, 128:670-674, 2018.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".