Prophylactic Swallowing Exercises in Patients with Laryngeal Cancer Who Underwent Total Laryngectomy—A Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study aims to determine the efficacy of prophylactic swallowing exercises on swallowing function in patients undergoing total laryngectomy for laryngeal cancer. Methods: The design was a randomized controlled trial set in one tertiary care academic medical center. A total of 92 patients undergoing total laryngectomy for stages III and IV laryngeal cancer performed five targeted swallowing exercises for a period of three months after their surgery, starting two weeks after the surgery. Weekly swallowing therapy sessions were held with the patients in order to encourage adherence and proper technique. The controls received no preventive exercise and were referred for swallowing treatment following the surgery, as well as radiation therapy if necessary. The Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS) and the Performance Status Scale for Head and Neck Cancer Patients (PSS-H&N) were used to measure swallowing function at the baseline, one week following the surgery, and three, six, nine, and twelve months following the surgery. Results: Right after the surgery, there were no statistically significant variations between the intervention and control groups in the FOIS scores (p value = 0.64), the Eating in Public subscale scores (p value = 1) and Normalcy of Diet subscale scores (p = 0.33) of the PSS-H&N. The scores were significantly better among the intervention patients at months 3, 6, 9, and 12 for all the scores, with p values smaller than 0.000. Conclusions: Although not immediately following the surgery, the patients who engaged in prophylactic swallowing exercises showed improvements in their ability to swallow at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months following their procedure.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".