Variability in Execution of the Chin-Down Maneuver by Healthy Adults
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The chin-down maneuver is commonly used in dysphagia management to facilitate greater airway protection. However, the literature suggests that variation in maneuver execution may threaten the effectiveness of the intervention. Our goal was to study variation in chin-down maneuver execution given a uniform instruction. METHODS: Sagittal view digital video recordings were acquired from 408 healthy adults who performed sequences of reiterated water swallows in head-neutral and chin-down positions. Head angle measurements were extracted from the recordings, using markers on goggles worn by 176 participants. RESULTS: We observed considerable variation in head angle in the head-neutral swallowing task, with a trend to greater flexion in participants over the age of 65. Male participants showed greater variation in head angle than females. Head flexion during the chin-down swallowing tasks averaged 19°, in the range reported to yield clinical benefit in radiographic studies. CONCLUSION: We conclude that a clear, uniform instruction is adequate to facilitate execution of the chin-down maneuver to a degree that is likely to be of clinical benefit. The variation in head angle observed in this study warrants further research, particularly regarding the relationship between anatomical cervical spine curvature and head angle influence on swallowing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it