MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408020835 · doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2024.5255

Online Intervention for Muscle Tension Dysphonia

2025· article· en· W4408020835 on OpenAlexaff
Viann N. Nguyen‐Feng, Patricia Frazier, Yuchen Liu, Erin Feddema, Benjamin Wils, Elizabeth Nikcevich, Ali Stockness, Kelvin O. Lim, Amanda Hu, Lisa Butcher, Stephanie Misono

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVoice and Speech Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMuscle tensionIntervention (counseling)Randomized controlled trialPhysical therapyMedicinePerceived Stress ScaleOtorhinolaryngologyClinical trialInteractive voice responsePilot trialVoice therapyPsychologyClinical psychologyAudiologyStress (linguistics)NursingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Voice-related perceived control is the extent to which a person feels they can control their voice condition and/or their response to it. Given the interaction of psychological factors and voice outcomes, an intervention targeting psychological factors may be a helpful adjunct to clinical voice care. Objective: To investigate the feasibility, acceptability, and potential efficacy of a perceived control intervention adapted for adult patients with muscle tension dysphonia and to compare its outcomes with those of a voice education program. Design, Settings, and Participants: This was a pilot randomized clinical trial using mixed methods and including adults with muscle tension dysphonia from academic otolaryngology clinics from July 8, 2018, to December 8, 2019. Participants were randomized to the voice education program or the perceived control intervention, and feasibility and acceptability of both were assessed using quantitative and qualitative measures. Data analyses were performed from October 1, 2023, to March 5, 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Voice-related impairment was measured using the Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10). Psychological factors were measured using the voice-related Perceived Present Control Scale, Brief Symptom Inventory-18 (BSI), and Perceived Stress Scale-4. Open-ended participant responses were analyzed following consensual qualitative research methods. Results: In all, 50 participants (mean [SD] age, 51.0 [15.9] years; 34 women [68%]); 27 were randomly assigned to receive the voice education program and 23 were randomly assigned to the perceived control intervention. Forty participants (80%) completed the study, which demonstrated the feasibility of both options. Outcomes of both the perceived control intervention and the voice education program were acceptable. Change in VHI-10 was heterogeneous, modest overall, and similar in the perceived control (-2.44; 95% CI, -4.25 to -0.63) and education (-2.94; 95% CI, -4.12 to -1.76) arms. Perceived control (secondary outcome) was higher, and exploratory outcomes (ie, somatic concerns, depression, anxiety, and perceived stress) were lower overall between pretest and posttest assessments. Qualitative analyses showed an overall decrease in negative voice-related emotions, fatigue, and negative self-image over the course of the perceived control intervention, and an interest in curated information in the voice education program. Conclusions and Relevance: This pilot randomized clinical trial indicates that both the perceived control intervention and voice education program appear promising for further development. Online interventions are of interest to people with voice disorders, and future work may benefit from taking individual differences into account. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03576365.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck SurgerySame topicVoice and Speech DisordersFrench-language works237,207