MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Prototype Low-Cost Pharyngeal Vibration Device for Voice Rehabilitation Following Laryngectomy

2022· article· en· W4312988686 on OpenAlexaff
Ricky Hu, Justin Wyss, Prateek Mathur, Housssam El-Hariri, Pardiss Danaei, Harman S. Parhar, Ameen Amanian, Donald W. Anderson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVoice and Speech Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhonationComputer scienceAcousticsVibrationLaryngectomyAudiologyLarynxMedicineSurgeryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Laryngeal cancer disproportionately affects socioeconomically disadvantaged patients and its incidence is increasing in low-resource environments. Surgical ablation with laryngectomy results in loss of voice necessitating rehabilitation, for which the current devices are prohibitively expensive or difficult to repair. In this study, we developed a prototype phonation device with accessible and affordable electronic and mechanical components. Material and vibration wave properties were chosen after modelling a modified longitudinal wave equation. The device consists of a 3D-printed cylinder with a tip-mounted oscillating solenoid controlled by a timer circuit to propagate longitudinal waves to the neck. Speech intelligibility and volume were assessed on healthy volunteers by measuring the accuracy of words heard by a listener after a brief introduction to device technique. This was repeated with a commercial electrolarynx device for comparison. The mean accuracy of the word recorded was 0.956 (IQR 0.940 - 1.000) with an audible frequency of 57Hz to 138Hz. The device demonstrated listener accuracy statistically similar to commercial devices with phonation frequencies that in range of average human voice. The device was more affordable than commercial devices (under 35 USD compared to 600 USD) with common electronic components obtainable from international retailers. The results provide motivate for further development with the goal of open-source distribution of a blueprint to be manufactured remotely in in low-resource settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.693
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVoice and Speech DisordersFrench-language works237,207