Abnormal Laryngeal Electromyography Findings in Asymptomatic Adults Across the Age Spectrum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Laryngeal electromyography (LEMG) is a diagnostic tool for patients with suspected neurogenic abnormalities of the larynx. LEMG is often used with the assumption that any abnormality is symptom-/disease-related. We sought to determine the prevalence of abnormal LEMG findings in a group of healthy asymptomatic adults across a large age spectrum. STUDY DESIGN: Open, prospective study, gender-match and age balanced by decade. METHODS: Forty-six healthy participants (age 20-78) underwent LEMG, including 178 muscles. Participants had no history of voice problems, normal VHI-10, and normal flexible laryngoscopy. Qualitative and quantitative LEMG (bilateral) were performed involving the thyroarytenoid-lateral cricoarytenoid muscle complex (TA-LCA) and cricothyroid (CT) muscles. LEMG parameters included evaluation for fibrillation potentials, sharp waves, reduced recruitment, polyphasic potentials, electrical synkinesis, and measurement of turns per second. RESULTS: Of participants, 4% had at least one abnormal qualitative finding (slightly reduced recruitment or two to three discrete polyphasic potentials). There were no findings of fibrillation potentials or sharp waves. There were no abnormal qualitative findings in the CT muscles tested. Of participants, 16% had at least one abnormal synkinesis finding. LEMG qualitative abnormalities and quantitative abnormalities do not appear to correlate with gender or age. CONCLUSION: Abnormal qualitative and quantitative LEMG findings were uncommon and minor in severity in our group of asymptomatic healthy adults. The likelihood of abnormal LEMG results in asymptomatic adults was 2.2% for qualitative findings, 9.3% for synkinesis, and 5.4% for turns/s. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 131:2065-2069, 2021.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".