Transnasal Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing: A Bedside Technique to Evaluate Ability to Swallow Pureed Diets in Elderly Patients with Dysphagia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (EES) is not commonly used by gastroenterologists to evaluate swallowing in patients with dysphagia. OBJECTIVE: To use transnasal endoscopy to identify factors predicting successful or failed swallowing of pureed foods in elderly patients with dysphagia. METHODS: EES of pureed foods was performed by a gastroenterologist using a small-calibre transnasal endoscope. Factors related to successful versus unsuccessful swallowing of pureed foods were analyzed with regard to age, comorbid diseases, swallowing activity, saliva pooling, vallecular residues, pharyngeal residues and airway penetration⁄aspiration. Unsuccessful swallowing was defined in patients who could not eat pureed foods at bedside during hospitalization. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent predictors of swallowing of pureed foods. RESULTS: During a six-year period, 458 consecutive patients (mean age 80 years [range 39 to 97 years]) were considered for the study, including 285 (62%) men. Saliva pooling, vallecular residues, pharyngeal residues and penetration⁄aspiration were found in 240 (52%), 73 (16%), 226 (49%) and 232 patients (51%), respectively. Overall, 247 patients (54%) failed to swallow pureed foods. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that the presence of pharyngeal residues (OR 6.0) and saliva pooling (OR 4.6) occurred significantly more frequently in patients who failed to swallow pureed foods. CONCLUSIONS: Pharyngeal residues and saliva pooling predicted impaired swallowing of pureed foods. Transnasal EES performed by a gastroenterologist provided a unique bedside method of assessing the ability to swallow pureed foods in elderly patients with dysphagia.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".