Pressure profile similarities between tongue resistance training tasks and liquid swallows
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
Tongue-pressure resistance training is known to increase tongue strength in seniors and individuals with stroke-related dysphagia. However, evidence of associated functional improvements in swallowing is equivocal. We investigated similarities in pressure waveform profiles between swallowing and several tongue-palate pressure tasks to identify tasks that may be best suited for inclusion in tongue-pressure resistance training protocols for patients who are unable to safely perform real bolus swallows in treatment. Tongue-palate pressures were recorded in 20 healthy young adults. Participants performed water and nectar-thick juice swallows, effortful and noneffortful saliva swallows, and "half-maximum" tongue-palate partial-pressure tasks emphasizing either anterior or posterior tongue-palate contact at different speeds. Pressure slopes (amplitude change over time) during the pressure application (rise) and withdrawal (release) phases were analyzed. A subset of four tasks with the greatest similarity in slope characteristics to those seen in bolus swallows was identified: anterior-emphasis half-maximum tongue-palate presses, posterior-emphasis maximum isometric tongue-palate presses, posterior-emphasis half-maximum slow tongue-palate presses, and effortful saliva swallows. We propose that future research should explore the degree to which swallowing improvements are obtained from treatment protocols that emphasize these tasks.
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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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