Respiratory–swallow phase patterns and their relationship to swallowing impairment in patients treated for oropharyngeal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unstable respiratory-swallowing coordination has been associated with disorders and disease. The goals of this study were (1) to describe respiratory-swallow patterns in patients with dysphagia consequent to treatments for cancers of the oropharynx and (2) to determine the association between respiratory-swallow patterns, airway invasion, and overall severity of swallowing impairment. METHODS: This prospective, cross-sectional design compared respiratory-swallow patterns in 20 patients treated for oropharyngeal cancer and 20 healthy, age-matched control participants. Nasal airflow direction was synchronously recorded with videofluoroscopic imaging in participants who swallowed 5-mL thin liquid barium boluses. RESULTS: Respiratory-swallow patterns differed between groups. Most control participants initiated and completed swallowing bracketed by expiratory airflow. Swallowing in patients often interrupted inspiratory flow and was associated with penetration or aspiration of the bolus. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest nonexpiratory bracketed respiratory-swallowing phase patterns in patients with oropharyngeal cancer may place patients at greater risk of airway penetration or aspiration during 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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".