MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031144143 · doi:10.1179/016164107x171555

Electric stimulation approaches to the restoration and rehabilitation of swallowing: a review

2007· review· en· W2031144143 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurological Research · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDysphagia Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSwallowingRehabilitationStimulationElectric stimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineElectric stimulation therapyArgument (complex analysis)Functional electrical stimulationPhysical therapyPsychologyNeuroscienceSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, there has been a proliferation of interest in the use of electric stimulation for the treatment of swallowing disorders. This review explores both the rationale and existing evidence for electric stimulation approaches to swallowing rehabilitation. Although this is an exciting area of research which holds promise for future clinically relevant technology and/or therapy, a critical analysis of the existing literature will be presented to support the argument that implementation of electric stimulation in clinical swallowing rehabilitation settings still remains pre-mature.

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.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.797

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.698
GPT teacher head0.603
Teacher spread0.095 · 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