MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411017872 · doi:10.1016/j.bjorl.2025.101644

The practice of oral feeding after total laryngectomy by Brazilian head and neck surgeons

2025· article· en· W4411017872 on OpenAlexaff
Johanna Benali, Tareck Ayad, Fábio Pupo Ceccon, Carlos M. Chiesa‐Estomba, Jérôme R. Lechien, Mateus Morais Aires, Leonardo Haddad, Gerrit Viljoen, Nicolas Fakhry

Bibliographic record

VenueBrazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDysphagia Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaryngectomyMedicineHead and neckGeneral surgeryHead (geology)SurgeryLarynxBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the initiation of oral feeding in patients following TL by a group of Brazilian head and neck surgeons. METHODS: Online survey - 75 responders from Brazil. RESULTS: 40.5% of the respondents introduced water and 41.9% of them introduced liquid diets between days 7 and 9 after TL without surgical complications or previous radiotherapy. Semi-solid feeds were started between days 10 and 14 in 47.3% of the patients and a free diet was begun after day 15 in 79.7% of them. There was statistically significant difference in the initiation of liquid feeds between different groups of TL patients, with earlier initiation in TL patients who had not undergone prior radio(chemo)therapy (p = 0.01419), with even greater differences when complex closure of the pharynx was needed (p = 0.00001), but not regarding the moment of a free diet introduction. CONCLUSION: Most respondents in this Brazilian cohort prefer to wait at least 7-days before beginning oral feeding after TL without previous radiotherapy or surgical complications, with a significant number of respondents postponing feeds in patients who had undergone salvage TL and pharyngolaryngectomy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

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)0.007
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.347 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrazilian Journal of OtorhinolaryngologySame topicDysphagia Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207