Nickel(II) complexes of 3-acetyl-4,5-dihydro-1,2,4-triazole hydrazones

3-Acetyl-1,2,4-triazole hydrazones (3b,c) and methylhydrazone (4d) were prepared by reacting triazoles (1b–d) with an excess of hydrazines at room temperature. Square planar nickel(II) complexes (8b,c) of (3b,c) were obtained from their reaction with Ni(OAc)₂ in a 2:1 mol ratio in EtOH at room temperature. The spectral data suggest structures (8b,c) for the obtained complexes, which result from ring opening of the triazole ring followed by recyclization to give the 5-arylhydrazono-2,3-dihydro-4H-1,2,4-triazine ligand (7b,c). The reaction of triazole methylhydrazone (4d) with Ni(OAc)₂ in EtOH resulted, however, in the formation of the starting triazole (1d). All new compounds were characterized by elemental analysis, i.r., ¹H-n.m.r. ¹³C-n.m.r. and hrms.     

Reliability of Speaking and Maximum Voice Range Measures in Screening for Dysphonia

Speech range profile (SRP) is a graphical display of frequency-intensity occurring interactions during functional speech activity. Few studies have suggested the potential clinical applications of SRP. However, these studies are limited to qualitative case comparisons and vocally healthy participants. The present study aimed to examine the effects of voice disorders on speaking and maximum voice ranges in a group of vocally untrained women. It also aimed to examine whether voice limit measures derived from SRP were as sensitive as those derived from voice range profile (VRP) in distinguishing dysphonic from healthy voices. Ninety dysphonic women with laryngeal pathologies and 35 women with normal voices, who served as controls, participated in this study. Each subject recorded a VRP for her physiological vocal limits. In addition, each subject read aloud the "North Wind and the Sun" passage to record SRP. All the recordings were captured and analyzed by Soundswell's computerized real-time phonetogram Phog 1.0 (Hitech Development AB, T?by, Sweden). The SRPs and the VRPs were compared between the two groups of subjects. Univariate analysis results demonstrated that individual SRP measures were less sensitive than the corresponding VRP measures in discriminating dysphonic from normal voices. However, stepwise logistic regression analyses revealed that the combination of only two SRP measures was almost as effective as a combination of three VRP measures in predicting the presence of dysphonia (overall prediction accuracy: 93.6% for SRP vs 96.0% for VRP). These results suggest that in a busy clinic where quick voice screening results are desirable, SRP can be an acceptable alternate procedure to VRP.