Bulbar Signs in Normal Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is lack of published data on bulbar signs among the healthy population. This study aims to determine the range of normality of bulbar signs particularly among the elderly. METHODS: Systemic examination of bulbar signs was carried out according to a predetermined protocol on a cohort of young and elderly healthy subjects. RESULTS: A total of 206 subjects were recruited in the study, 104 young adults with mean age of 20 years, and 102 elderly with mean age of 73 years. Uvula deviation was seen in 28 (26.9%) young subjects and 22 (21.6%) elderly. Irregular tongue border was seen in 17 subjects, unilateral in 4 subjects. Fourteen (6.8%) subjects had deviation on tongue protrusion. Occasional tremor of tongue on protrusion is common in both young and old. Persistent (severe) tongue tremor on protrusion was seen in 18.6% of the elderly, and 4.8% of the young. None of the subjects had tremor of tongue at rest. In gag reflex, absence of gagging response was common in elderly, seen in two thirds of the subjects on stimulation of the posterior pharyngeal wall. However, all the subjects had uvular movement. Habituation or suppression of gagging response was seen in close to 90% of young males. CONCLUSION: There is wide range of normality in bulbar signs in normal population, particularly among the elderly.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".