MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Tongue–pressure and hyoid movement timing in healthy liquid swallowing

2011· article· en· W2114698236 on OpenAlexafffund
Catriona M. Steele, Caroline Sasse, Tim Bressmann

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Language & Communication Disorders · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDysphagia Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation Institute
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTongueSwallowingHyoid boneExcursionMedicineAnatomySoft palateOrthodonticsDentistrySurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It was hypothesized that tongue-palate pressure generation might directly facilitate hyoid movement in swallowing through the anatomical connections of the extrinsic tongue muscles. If true, non-invasive measures of tongue-palate pressure timing might serve as a proxy measure of hyoid excursion. The timing relationships between events in the tongue-palate pressure and hyoid movement profiles during water and nectar-thick liquid swallowing in healthy adults were explored. Concurrent intra-oral manometry and submental B-mode midsagittal ultrasound were recorded. It was determined that there is no obligate sequence in the onsets, or offsets, of tongue-palate pressures and hyoid excursion. Timing lags (either of hyoid movement lagging tongue-palate pressures or vice versa) fell within 0.5 s, on average. It is concluded that tongue-palate pressure generation and hyoid movement are separate phenomena in the swallowing sequence and that non-invasive measures of tongue-pressure timing cannot be used reliably as proxy measures of hyoid movement timing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.366 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Language & Communication DisordersSame topicDysphagia Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207