MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Buccal and lingual activity during mastication and swallowing in typical adults

2002· article· en· W2028283541 on OpenAlexaff
Michael J Casas, Danelle Kenny, R. E. Macmillan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Oral Rehabilitation · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicTemporomandibular Joint Disorders
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
FundersCerebral Palsy Foundation
KeywordsMasticationSwallowingMolarElectromyographyMasticatory forceDentistryMedicineOrthodonticsMasseter muscleBuccal administrationTongueMandibular first molarCoronal planeAnatomyPhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A non-invasive protocol was developed to assess tongue and cheek movements during mastication and to evaluate the temporal relationship between mastication and the initiation of pharyngeal swallowing. Typical adults (three males and three females) were monitored during chewing. Miniature pressure transducers were bonded unilaterally to the buccal and lingual surfaces of the first mandibular molar and the buccal surface of the first maxillary molar on each subject's preferred chewing side. Surface electromyography of the ipsilateral masseter muscle was recorded as an indicator of jaw-closing activity. Pressure and electromyography (EMG) recordings were time-linked to simultaneous B-mode ultrasound imaging of the oral cavity using a submental, coronal view aligned with the first mandibular molar. The intervals between peak pressure recorded at each pressure transducer and peak jaw-closing activity for each masticatory cycle were not statistically different [analysis of variance (anova), P=0.9856] and displayed large statistical variation. These intervals were not different at the beginning of the trials (hard biscuit) than they were at the completion of mastication when the cookie had been broken down to a paste/puree consistency bolus. The interval between the last chewing stroke and the initiation of swallowing was 0.92 +/- 0.34 s). No significant difference existed among subjects for this time interval (anova, P=0.382).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.335 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Oral RehabilitationSame topicTemporomandibular Joint DisordersFrench-language works237,207