Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rehabilitative techniques for dysphagia (swallowing impairment) increasingly employ exercise modeled on methods used to train muscles in sports medicine. Three techniques in particular show promise for improving muscle strength and function related to swallowing: the Shaker exercise, expiratory muscle strength training, and tongue pressure resistance training. All three techniques invoke principles of task specificity, muscular load, resistance, and intensity, and aim to achieve functional changes in swallowing through changes in muscle physiology derived from strength or endurance training. To date, studies of treatment benefit arising from these techniques involve small sample sizes; this is particularly true of randomized studies with controls receiving standard treatment or experiencing spontaneous recovery. Nevertheless, a review of the available literature shows that improvement of penetration-aspiration is a common finding for individuals with dysphagia receiving one of these three treatment approaches. Although hypothesized as an expected outcome of swallow muscle strength training, improvements in post-swallow residues are noted to be uncommon as an outcome of these exercise-based approaches. The available evidence suggests that exercise-based approaches to swallowing rehabilitation do succeed in changing muscle strength and function, but generalization to true swallowing tasks may be somewhat limited.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".