Patterns of alaryngeal voice adoption and predictive factors of vocal rehabilitation failure following total laryngectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine patterns of alaryngeal voice acquisition and predictive factors of vocal rehabilitation (VR) failure following total laryngectomy (TL) at a large Canadian tertiary care center. METHODS: All consecutive patients having undergone a TL between January 1st, 2011 and December 31st, 2019, at the Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal were included. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-seven laryngectomized patients were identified. Successful VR was achieved in 86 (59.0%) patients, while 59 (41.0%) failed to use a method of alaryngeal voice as their principal means of communication at 1 year postoperatively. The use of tracheoesophageal puncture (TEP) was associated with higher VR success rates (70.6%) when compared with the artificial larynx (48.6%), and esophageal voice (18.8%). The only independent predictor of VR failure on multivariate analysis at all time points was a low socioeconomic status. CONCLUSION: Failure to adopt an alaryngeal voice following TL is highly prevalent, despite comprehensive and free speech language pathologist services being offered at our center. A low resort to TEP at our institution and a poor acceptability and accessibility of alternative VR methods may contribute to this trend. The challenges of VR may be further exacerbated by the barriers linked to a lower socioeconomic status, which in turn may contribute to reduced candidacy for TEP.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".