MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2923969653 · doi:10.1002/lary.27897

Voice and swallowing dysfunction in X‐linked dystonia parkinsonism

2019· article· en· W2923969653 on OpenAlexaff
Phillip C. Song, Hoài Bắc Lê, Patrick Acuña, Jan Kristopher Palentinos De Guzman, Nutan Sharma, Taylor N. Francouer, Marisela Dy-Hollins, Criscely L. Go

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Laryngoscope · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsHealth Care Foundation
FundersMassachusetts General Hospital
KeywordsMedicineSwallowingDysphagiaQuality of life (healthcare)TongueStridorLarynxOropharyngeal dysphagiaDystoniaParkinsonismPharynxAudiologyAnesthesiaAirwaySurgeryInternal medicinePathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To systematically characterize and describe voice and swallowing manifestations in patients with X-linked dystonia parkinsonism (XDP) and correlate with quality-of-life (QOL) measures. METHODS: Thirty-four patients with XDP with communication and swallowing difficulties underwent neurological examination, head and neck examination, nasopharyngoscopy, QOL surveys (Swallowing Quality of Life questionnaire [SWAL-QOL] and Voice Handicap Index [VHI]), and functional endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) to assess the extent of dysfunction. RESULTS: All patients showed high rates of lingual, oromandibular, and laryngeal dysfunction, as well as severe QOL changes in swallowing and communication ability. The most common head and neck manifestations of dystonic symptoms were difficulty coordinating the mouth and tongue (79%), uncontrollable tongue thrusting (53%), and jaw opening (35%). Laryngeal symptoms including vocal strain (adductor voice breaks) or stridor (32%), as well as velopharyngeal insufficiency (20%), were also identified. Of the patients with laryngeal symptoms, 18% had respiratory dystonia. Swallowing assessments showed significant abnormalities in oral bolus control and oropharyngeal dysphagia. FEES examinations showed that 87.5% of the study group had penetration or aspiration. QOL scores showed an average VHI of 94.4 (severe dysfunction), and SWAL-QOL showed an average of 37.7 (severe dysfunction). CONCLUSION: Swallowing and voice impairment in XDP is not well characterized and presents a more distinctive phenomenology than other neurological disorders, with a unique set of challenges for treatment. This is the first study to systematically evaluate laryngeal and pharyngeal dysfunction in XDP patients and correlate with QOL measures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 130:171-177, 2020.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.373
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.223 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe LaryngoscopeSame topicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207