The prevalence of cognitive impairment in laryngology treatment–seeking patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The incidence of cognitive impairment (CI) in the elderly general population is 10% to 20%. The incidence of CI in the elderly laryngology treatment-seeking population is unknown, and CI may impact decision making for elective medical/surgical treatment and negatively impact the outcome of voice/swallowing therapy. We sought to determine the prevalence of CI in elderly patients who are seeking laryngology care and to evaluate the feasibility of administering a cognitive screening instrument. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, Cross-sectional. METHODS: One hundred fifty patients (≥65 years old) without a previous diagnosis of CI, seeking laryngology evaluation, were administered the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test by a trained physician. Other members of the clinical team were blinded to the MoCA results. RESULTS: Twenty-five percent of participants obtained a score diagnostic for at least mild CI. The results showed a correlation between the MoCA scores and 1) the time needed to complete the test, 2) participant age, and 3) participant education level. No differences were observed between gender, alcohol consumption, or use of medications that can affect cognition and MoCA score. CONCLUSION: One in four elderly laryngology treatment-seeking patients were found to have undiagnosed CI. This finding warrants consideration for CI screening for these patients being evaluated for voice therapy and elective surgery. Treatment decision making in this population may benefit from additional family involvement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2c Laryngoscope, 130: 2003-2007, 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 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".