A review of the relationship between dysphagia and malnutrition following stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To clarify the relationship between malnutrition and dysphagia following stroke. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: All published trials that had examined both the swallowing ability and nutritional status of subjects following stroke were identified. Pooled analyses were performed to establish whether the odds of being malnourished were increased given the presence of dysphagia. RESULTS: Eight studies were identified. The presence of malnutrition and dysphagia ranged from 8.2% to 49.0% and 24.3% to 52.6%, respectively. Five of the included trials were conducted within the first 7 days following stroke, while 3 were conducted during the rehabilitation phase. The overall odds of being malnourished were higher among subjects who were dysphagic compared with subjects with intact swallowing (odds ratio: 2.425; 95% confidence interval: 1.264-4.649, p < 0.008). In subgroup analysis, the odds of malnutrition were significantly increased during the rehabilitation stage (odds ratio: 2.445; 95% confidence interval: 1.009-5.925, p < 0.048), but not during the first 7 days of hospital admission (odds ratio: 2.401; 95% confidence interval: 0.918-6.277, p < 0.074). CONCLUSION: In a systematic review including the results from 8 studies, the odds of being malnourished were increased given the presence of dysphagia following stroke.
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 | 0.009 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".