Viscosity Is Not a Parameter of Postdeglutitive Pharyngeal Residue: Quantification and Analysis with Scintigraphy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to explore the influence of viscosity on pharyngeal residue in normal healthy volunteers. Scintigraphy was used to measure pharyngeal residue in 11 healthy volunteers after swallowing three different substances (age = 20.2-48.3 years). The first substance was a 10-ml solution of tap water with 0.5% xanthan with a viscosity of 4500 mPa s, comparable to a yogurt drink. The second and third substances were a 0.75% xanthan and a 1.00% xanthan solution, with viscosities of 10,500 and 21,000 mPa s, comparable to low-fat yogurt and 3% fat yogurt, respectively. Tap water was used as the control substance. Mean pharyngeal residue after swallowing tap water was 2.3% (SD = 1.2) of the initial volume in the oral cavity. Pharyngeal residue after swallowing 0.5% xanthan solution was 1.8% (SD = 0.8), after swallowing 0.75% xanthan solution 2.6% (SD = 2.2), and after swallowing 1.00% xanthan solution 2.8% (SD = 1.7). No significant correlation between increase of viscosity and pharyngeal residue was found. In healthy persons viscosity does not seem to be a significant parameter for pharyngeal residue for boluses with viscosities ranging from tap water to solutions having a viscosity comparable to 3% fat yogurt.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".