Dysphagia After Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of dysphagia and associated pulmonary compromise in stroke patients through a systematic review of the published literature. METHODS: Databases were searched (1966 through May 2005) using terms "cerebrovascular disorders," "deglutition disorders," and limited to "humans" for original articles addressing the frequency of dysphagia or pneumonia. Data sources included Medline, Embase, Pascal, relevant Internet addresses, and extensive hand searching of bibliographies of identified articles. Selected articles were reviewed for quality, diagnostic methods, and patient characteristics. Comparisons were made of reported dysphagia and pneumonia frequencies. The relative risks (RRs) of developing pneumonia were calculated in patients with dysphagia and confirmed aspiration. RESULTS: Of the 277 sources identified, 104 were original, peer-reviewed articles that focused on adult stroke patients with dysphagia. Of these, 24 articles met inclusion criteria and were evaluated. The reported incidence of dysphagia was lowest using cursory screening techniques (37% to 45%), higher using clinical testing (51% to 55%), and highest using instrumental testing (64% to 78%). Dysphagia tends to be lower after hemispheric stroke and remains prominent in the rehabilitation brain stem stroke. There is increased risk for pneumonia in patients with dysphagia (RR, 3.17; 95% CI, 2.07, 4.87) and an even greater risk in patients with aspiration (RR, 11.56; 95% CI, 3.36, 39.77). CONCLUSIONS: The high incidence for dysphagia and pneumonia is a consistent finding with stroke patients. The pneumonia risk is greatest in stroke patients with aspiration. These findings will be valuable in the design of future dysphagia research.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".