How Do Nasopharyngoscopy Ratings of Sustained Speech Differ From Connected Speech?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To assess the relationship in ratings of velopharyngeal closure between connected speech and sustained speech, as visualized on nasopharyngoscopy. Design Prospective observational study. Setting Craniofacial clinics in the United States and Canada. Participants Fifty-two participants with velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) who underwent nasopharyngoscopy and produced both connected speech and sustained speech of either /i/or /s/ during the procedure. Main outcome measure(s) Correlations and differences between connected speech and sustained speech for velopharyngeal closure percentage, velar movement, lateral pharyngeal wall movement, and velopharyngeal closure pattern. Results There were moderate to very strong correlations observed between connected speech and sustained /i/ for velopharyngeal closure percentage ( P < .01); extent of velar movement ( P < .01), and left ( P < .01) and right ( P < .01) lateral pharyngeal wall movement. Findings were similar between connected speech and sustained /s/. Differences between ratings made during connected and sustained speech were small: for velopharyngeal closure percentage, there was a 5% difference in the mean between connected speech and sustained /i/ (77.5% vs 72.5%) and a 7% difference for /s/ (79.3% vs 86.7%). Overall differences across ratings ranged from 2% to 12%. Closure pattern was rated the same for both connected speech and sustained /i/ in 90% of videos (n = 44/49; P = .38) and the same for connected speech and sustained /s/ in 95% of videos (n = 42/44; P = 1.00). Conclusions Ratings of velopharyngeal movement during nasopharyngoscopy are similar between connected speech and sustained /i/ and /s/ suggesting elicitation of only sustained /i/ and /s/ may be adequate in most cases when assessment of connected speech is not possible.
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 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".