MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922097196 · doi:10.1002/lio2.257

A systematic review of surgical treatment for supraglottic exercise‐induced laryngeal obstruction

2019· review· en· W2922097196 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karina Siewers, Vibeke Backer, Emil S. Walsted

Bibliographic record

VenueLaryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory and Cough-Related Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGeneral surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Exercise-induced laryngeal obstruction (EILO) is a condition causing breathing difficulties and stridor during exercise. The condition has in severe cases been treated surgically with supraglottoplasty. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the evidence and recommendations for surgical intervention in treating patients with EILO. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in PubMed and Embase to identify relevant studies describing surgical treatment of patients diagnosed with severe EILO. According to eligibility criteria, data were independently extracted by two reviewers. To assess the risk of bias of each included study, the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) was used. RESULTS: The screening process identified 11 observational studies with a total of 75 patients. Findings indicated that many beneficial outcomes are to be found in surgical treatment for EILO. These indications were found both on visual verification of improvement of the laryngeal obstruction during exercise and patient self-reported symptom severity. The average NOS score (4.3) indicated low level of evidence in the included studies. CONCLUSION: Studies reporting effects of surgical treatment of EILO have shown promising results in patients with laryngeal obstruction. However, the heterogeneity of study methodologies and the level of evidence precludes definitive recommendations for or against supraglottoplasty at this time; prospective and methodologically robust studies are now needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations29
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaryngoscope Investigative OtolaryngologySame topicRespiratory and Cough-Related ResearchFrench-language works237,207