Multicenter prospective study on the use and outcome of rehabilitation after total laryngectomy in Germany
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the use and outcome of rehabilitation after total laryngectomy in Germany. METHODS: We enrolled patients who were scheduled for total laryngectomy, approached them again after surgery, after 3 months and 1 year. Patients completed questionnaires and were interviewed. RESULTS: Of 309 participants, 14% had not received any rehabilitation. Reasons for nonuse were primarily ongoing treatment and poor health. Users of rehabilitation had 4 times the odds of attaining any ability to speak compared to nonusers (odds ratio 3.8, P = .02). The main aim of rehabilitation from the perspective of the users was speech rehabilitation, mentioned by 71% before starting rehabilitation. This was also what most users (27%) found the most helpful part of rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: Patients are interested in attending rehabilitation. They especially want to improve their speech capacity, which indeed is better among users of rehabilitation than in those without.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".