A Preliminary Investigation of Similarities of High Resolution Cervical Auscultation Signals Between Thin Liquid Barium and Water Swallows
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Dysphagia, commonly referred to as abnormal swallowing, affects millions of people annually. If not diagnosed expeditiously, dysphagia can lead to more severe complications, such as pneumonia, nutritional deficiency, and dehydration. Bedside screening is the first step of dysphagia characterization and is usually based on pass/fail tests in which a nurse observes the patient performing water swallows to look for dysphagia overt signs such as coughing. Though quick and convenient, bedside screening only provides low-level judgment of impairment, lacks standardization, and suffers from subjectivity. Recently, high resolution cervical auscultation (HRCA) has been investigated as a less expensive and non-invasive method to diagnose dysphagia. It has shown strong preliminary evidence of its effectiveness in penetration-aspiration detection as well as multiple swallow kinematics. HRCA signals have traditionally been collected and investigated in conjunction with videofluoroscopy exams which are performed using barium boluses including thin liquid. An HRCA-based bedside screening is highly desirable to expedite the initial dysphagia diagnosis and overcome all the drawbacks of the current pass/fail screening tests. However, all research conducted for using HRCA in dysphagia is based on thin liquid barium boluses and thus not guaranteed to provide valid results for water boluses used in bedside screening. If HRCA signals show no significant differences between water and thin liquid barium boluses, then the same algorithms developed on thin liquid barium boluses used in diagnostic imaging studies, it can be then directly used with water boluses. This study investigates the similarities and differences between HRCA signals from thin liquid barium swallows compared to those signals from water swallows. Multiple features from the time, frequency, time-frequency, and information-theoretic domain were extracted from each type of swallow and a group of linear mixed models was tested to determine the significance of differences. Machine learning classifiers were fit to the data as well to determine if the swallowed material (thin liquid barium or water) can be correctly predicted from an unlabeled set of HRCA signals. The results demonstrated that there is no systematic difference between the HRCA signals of thin liquid barium swallows and water swallows. While no systematic difference was discovered, the evidence of complete conformity between HRCA signals of both materials was inconclusive. These results must be validated further to confirm conformity between the HRCA signals of thin liquid barium swallows and water swallows.
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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 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 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».