Ex vivo evaluation of arytenoid corniculectomy, compared with three other airway interventions, performed on cadaveric equine larynges with simulated recurrent laryngeal neuropathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare laryngeal impedance, in terms of air flow and pressure, following arytenoid corniculectomy (COR) versus 3 other airway interventions (left-sided laryngoplasty with ipsilateral ventriculocordectomy [LLP], LLP combined with COR [LLPCOR], and partial arytenoidectomy [PA]) performed on cadaveric equine larynges with simulated left recurrent laryngeal neuropathy (RLN) and to determine whether relative laryngeal collapse correlated with the interventions performed. SAMPLE: 28 cadaveric equine larynges. PROCEDURES: Each larynx in states of simulated left RLN alone and with airway interventions in the order LLP, LLPCOR, COR, and PA was evaluated in a box model construct that replicated upper airway flow mechanics consistent with peak exercise in horses. Results for impedance, calculated from airflow and pressure changes, were compared between states for each larynx. Multivariable mixed-effects analysis controlling for repeated measures within larynx was performed to calculate the predicted mean impedance for each state. RESULTS: Results indicated that tracheal adapter diameter, individual larynx properties, airway intervention, and relative laryngeal collapse affected laryngeal impedance. The LLP and LLPCOR interventions had the lowest impedance, whereas the COR and PA interventions did not differ substantially from the simulated left RLN state. Residual intraclass correlation of the model was 27.6 %. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although impedance was higher for the simulated left RLN with the COR intervention state than with the LLP intervention state, given the clinical success of PA for treating RLN in horses and the similar results for the COR and PA intervention states in the present study, the use of COR warrants further investigation. The residual interclass correlation suggested that individual laryngeal variation affected impedance and may have a clinical effect.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".