The Effect of Tongue-Tie Release on Speech Articulation and Intelligibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The relationship between ankyloglossia and speech is controversial. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of tongue-tie release on speech articulation and intelligibility. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted. Pediatric patients (>2 years of age) being referred for speech concerns due to ankyloglossia were assessed by a pediatric otolaryngologist, and speech articulation was formally assessed by a speech language pathologist using the Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation 2 (GFTA-2). Patients then underwent a tongue-tie release procedure in clinic. After 1 month, speech articulation was reassessed with GFTA-2. Audio-recordings of sessions were evaluated by independent reviewers to assess speech intelligibility before and after tongue-tie release. RESULTS: Twenty-five participants were included (mean age 3.7 years; 20 boys). The most common speech errors identified were phonological substitutions (80%) and gliding errors (56%). Seven children (28%) had abnormal lingual-alveolar and interdental sounds. Most speech sound errors (87.9%) were age/developmentally appropriate. GFTA-2 standard scores before and after tongue-tie release were 85.61 (SD 9.75) and 87.54 (SD 10.21), respectively, (P=.5). Mean intelligibility scores before and after tongue-tie release were 3.15 (SD .22) and 3.21 (SD .31), respectively, (P=.43). CONCLUSION: The majority of children being referred for speech concerns thought to be due to ankyloglossia had age-appropriate speech errors at presentation. Ankyloglossia was not associated with isolated tongue mobility related speech articulation errors in a consistent manner, and there was no benefit of tongue-tie release in improving speech articulation or intelligibility.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".