Is aspiration during swallowing more common in Canadian children with indigenous heritage?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
While many factors that contribute to the occurrence of lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) in Canadian indigenous children have been described, the role of aspiration during swallowing has not been explored in these children. Because of an increase in referrals of indigenous children from our catchment area (Manitoba, North Western Ontario, and Nunavut) for assessment of aspiration during swallowing, we retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of 325 consecutive children undergoing videofluoroscopic swallowing studies (VFSS) to evaluate which factors, including indigenous heritage and LRTI, were associated with aspiration during swallowing. Our sample had an overrepresentation of indigenous children (35% compared to 23% in the catchment area). These children were more likely to aspirate during swallowing (P = 0.001) and to have experienced an LRTI prior to the VFSS (P = 0.000). When separating the children who aspirated into two groups based on indigenous heritage, the indigenous children were more likely to have had an LRTI (P = 0.028) than the other children in the sample. With logistic regression analysis, significant correlations between indigenous heritage, LRTI (P = 0.000), and aspiration (P = 0.009) were found. When aspiration during swallowing was the factor of interest, it correlated with both LRTI (P = 0.001) and the presence of congested upper airway noises after eating (P = 0.000). These upper airway noises were strongly associated with aspiration in indigenous children (P = 0.004). While prospective data are required to determine if the correlations seen in this retrospective review will remain robust, indigenous children were more likely to aspirate during swallowing and have LRTI in this sample. Whether aspiration during swallowing is related to environmental, ethnic, or biological factors in indigenous children remains to be determined, but the association between aspiration and congested upper airway noises after eating may assist in the early diagnosis of aspiration during swallowing, and thereby enable timely intervention to decrease aspiration risk in children already at risk of repeated LRTI due to a number of other confounding factors.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».