Role of voice rest following laser resection of vocal fold lesions: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Voice rest is often prescribed following phonosurgery by most surgeons despite limited empiric evidence to support its practice. This study assessed the effect of postphonosurgery voice rest on vocal outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized controlled trial. METHODS: laser excision were recruited in a prospective manner and randomized into one of two groups: 1) an experimental arm consisting of 7 days of absolute voice rest, or 2) a control arm consisting of no voice rest. The primary outcome measure was the Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10) questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included aerodynamic measurements (maximum phonation time), acoustic measures (fundamental frequency, jitter, shimmer, and harmonic-to-noise ratio), and auditory-perceptual measures. Primary and secondary outcomes were assessed preoperatively and reassessed postoperatively at the 1- and 3-month follow-up. Patient compliance to voice rest instructions were controlled for using subjective and objective parameters. RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled with 15 randomized to each arm of the study. Statistical analysis for the entire cohort showed a significant improvement in the mean preoperative VHI-10 compared to postoperative assessments at 1-month (19.0 vs. 7.3, P < .05) and 3-month (19.0 vs. 6.2, P < .05) follow-up. However, between-group comparisons showed no significant difference in postoperative VHI-10 at either time point. Similarly, secondary outcome measures yielded no significant difference in between-group comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows no significant benefit to voice rest on postoperative voice outcomes as determined by patient self-perception, acoustic variables, and auditory-perceptual analysis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1b CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT02788435 (clinicaltrials.gov) Laryngoscope, 130:1750-1755, 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".