The Functional & Quality of Life Outcomes of Total Glossectomy with Laryngeal Preservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The tongue is an essential organ for human interaction, communication and survival. To date, there is a paucity of objective functional, patient reported, or quality of life outcomes of patients undergoing a total glossectomy with preservation of the larynx (TGLP). OBJECTIVE: To examine prospectively collected objective, self-reported functional and quality of life (QOL) data in patients undergoing TGLP and free flap reconstruction. METHODS: Sixteen TGLP patients were identified in the prospective head and neck cancer and functional outcomes database between January of 2009 and December 2017. Data collection included patient age, sex, performance status, TNM staging, diagnosis and adjuvant treatment. Swallowing and speech functions were measured and prospectively recorded pre- and postoperatively. Patient reported outcomes were measured with the Speech Handicap Index (SHI) and the M.D. Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI). RESULTS: < .001) scores. There was no significant reduction in SHI or total MDADI scores. All patients maintained their QOL in the post-treatment time frame. There was no relationship between free-flap type and outcome. CONCLUSION: Total glossectomy with laryngeal sparing and free flap reconstruction results in significant reduction in objective functional measurements, but patients report stable functional and quality of life outcomes after treatment.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".