The Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Voice Outcomes in Patients With Spasmodic Dysphonia Treated With Botulinum Toxin Injections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES:: To determine the impact of socioeconomic status (SES) on voice outcomes for spasmodic dysphonia (SD) patients treated with botulinum toxin injections. METHODS:: This was a prospective cross-sectional study in a tertiary care, academic voice clinic in Canada. Adult SD patients returning to the voice clinic for their botulinum toxin injections were recruited from October 2017 to April 2018. Patients completed a questionnaire on demographic data, the Hollingshead Four-Factor Index for socioeconomic status (validated instrument based on education, occupation, gender, and marital status), and the Voice-Handicap Index 10 (VHI-10) (validated instrument on self-reported vocal handicap). Primary outcome was the association between VHI-10 and Hollingshead Index. Secondary variables were median household income by postal code, duration of disease, gender, age, and professional voice user. Descriptive statistics and multiple linear regression were conducted. RESULTS:: One hundred and one patients (age = 62.8 ± 13.7 years, 20.8% male) were recruited with VHI-10 of 22.1 ± 8.1 (out of 40) and Hollingshead Index of 46.3 ± 11.7 (range, 8-66). Median household income was $75 875 ± $16 393, which was above the Canadian average of $70 336. About 91.1% were Caucasian, 54.4% had university degree, 86.1% spoke English, and 43.5% were employed. In multiple linear regression, there was mild to moderate negative correlation (r = -.292, P = .004) between VHI-10 and Hollingshead Index when controlling for disease duration, age, gender, and professional voice use. CONCLUSION:: SD patients treated with botulinum toxin were mostly affluent, Caucasian, well educated, and English speakers. Lower self-perceived vocal handicap was associated with higher socioeconomic status.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".