MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403005908 · doi:10.1002/oto2.70025

Prevalence and Risk Factors for Swallowing Dysfunction in Patients With Laryngomalacia Treated Medically and Surgically

2024· article· en· W4403005908 on OpenAlexaff
Janelle Sloychuk, Amy Callaghan, Amanda Adsett, Daniela Migliarese Isaac, Hamdy El‐Hakim, André Isaac

Bibliographic record

VenueOTO Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDysphagia Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSwallowingLaryngomalaciaDysphagiaCohortRetrospective cohort studyOtorhinolaryngologyPediatricsLaryngoscopyReferralCohort studySurgeryAirwayInternal medicineIntubationStridor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To identify the prevalence, pattern, and nature of swallowing dysfunction (SwD) in a consecutive cohort of patients with laryngomalacia (LM), and to determine factors associated with a higher burden of SwD. Study Design: This was a retrospective review of consecutive patients diagnosed with LM by 2 pediatric otolaryngologists between 2013 and 2022 and a minimum of 3-month follow-up. Setting: Tertiary care pediatric otolaryngology referral center. Methods: Consecutive cohort of patients less than 3 years old with LM diagnosed on flexible laryngoscopy were reviewed. Patients with incomplete follow-up, lack of swallowing assessment, and genetic conditions or syndromes were excluded. All patients underwent at minimum a systematic clinical swallowing evaluation by a speech-language pathologist specialized in pediatric dysphagia. Patients with concerning clinical exams underwent instrumental swallow evaluation (Videofluoroscopic Swallow Study [VFSS] or Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing [FEES]). The prevalence of abnormalities of clinical swallowing evaluation, instrumental swallow evaluation data, and details of management were collected. Results: Two hundred and twelve patients met criteria and were included in the final analysis. One hundred and fifteen patients (54%) had an instrumental assessment (VFSS or FEES). Of the instrumental assessments performed, 96 (69%) were abnormal. Of the total patient cohort, 55 (26%) had laryngeal penetration and/or aspiration. One hundred and seventeen (55%) had clinical or instrumental indications for intervention, with 18 (8%) requiring tube feeding. Patients with severe LM and those treated surgically had a statistically significant higher rate of penetration and aspiration. Conclusion: Patients with LM have a high burden of dysphagia requiring medical intervention. The authors advocate for routine and systematic assessment of all patients with LM for swallowing dysfunction.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOTO OpenSame topicDysphagia Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207