Textural Characterization of Pureed Cakes Prepared for the Therapeutic Treatment of Dysphagic Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dysphagia is a difficulty in eating and swallowing of solid and/or liquid foods in elderly patients. Texture characterization of therapeutic diets for dysphagia patients has not been studied extensively. In this study, five different pureed therapeutic cakes (apple, orange, vanilla, carrot, and chocolate), previously proved efficient in the treatment of dysphagic patients, were evaluated for firmness, cohesiveness, adhesiveness, and springiness using textural profile analysis. The therapeutic cakes were tested at two serving temperatures: 12°C and 23°C. Results of sensorial tests confirmed that clinical efficiency and texture firmness of the therapeutic cakes ranged from 0.741 to 2.52 N for cakes at 12°C and from 0.608 to 2.58 N for cakes at 23°C. Similarly, cohesiveness ranged from 0.391 to 0.561 at 12°C and 0.479 to 0.568 at 23°C, adhesiveness from –0.219 to –0.436 N at 12°C and – 0.201 to –0.424 N at 23°C and finally springiness ranged from 46 to 70% at 12°C and 24 to 61% at 23°C. Non-therapeutic cakes averaged 2.77 N for firmness, 0.553 for cohesiveness, –0.385 N for adhesiveness, and 55% for springiness.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".