Age-related Differences in Tongue-Palate Pressures for Strength and Swallowing Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tongue plays a key role in the generation of pressures for transporting liquids and foods through the mouth in swallowing. Recent studies suggest that there is an age-related decline in tongue strength in healthy adults. However, whether age-related changes occur in tongue pressures generated for the purpose of swallowing remains unclear. Prior literature in this regard does not clearly explore the influence of task on apparent age-related differences in tongue pressure amplitudes. Furthermore, differences attributable to variations across individuals in strength, independent of age, have not clearly been elucidated. In this study, our goal was to clarify whether older adults have reduced tongue-palate pressures during maximum isometric, saliva swallowing, and water swallowing tasks, while controlling for individual variations in strength. Data were collected from 40 healthy younger adults (under age 40) and 38 healthy mature adults (over age 60). As a group, the mature participants had significantly lower maximum isometric pressures (MIPs). Swallowing pressures differed significantly by task, with higher pressures seen in saliva swallows than in water swallows. Age-group differences were not seen in swallowing pressures. Consideration of MIP as a covariate in the analysis of swallowing pressures revealed significant correlations between strength and swallowing pressures in the older participant group. Age-group differences were evident only when strength was considered in the model, suggesting that apparent age-related differences are, in fact, explained by differences in strength, which tends to be lower in healthy older adults. Our results show no evidence of independent differences in swallowing pressures attributable to age.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".