Endoscopic evaluation of pharyngeal and laryngeal sensation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): A cross‐sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the findings of endoscopic sensory assessment in COPD patients and healthy controls. DESIGN: A prospective cross-sectional study. SETTING: Otorhinolaryngology outpatient clinic at a university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: 27 adults with COPD and 11 age-matched healthy controls. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Group differences in light touch endoscopic tests of pharyngeal and laryngeal sensation, controlling for pooled salivary secretions in the pharynx and laryngo-pharyngeal reflux as measured by the Reflux Finding Score (RFS). RESULTS: A significant difference in laryngeal sensation was found between the study groups (P = .047), with reduced laryngeal sensation in the COPD patients. Additionally, a significant relationship was found between impaired oropharyngeal sensation and the presence of pooled salivary secretions in the pharynx (P = .018), especially in the pyriform sinuses (P = .012). No differences in the frequency of abnormal RFSs were found between groups. CONCLUSION: Individuals with COPD were significantly more likely to present with impaired laryngeal sensation. Additionally, impaired sensation in the oropharynx was associated with pooled salivary secretions in the pharynx.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".