Effects of a Free Water Protocol on Inpatients in a Neuro-Rehabilitation Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Dysphagia is common among stroke and acquired brain injury (ABI) patients and may result in aspiration. To reduce the risk of thin liquid aspiration, patients are often restricted to thickened fluids. There is considerable clinical interest in the risks and benefits of offering oral water intake, in the form of water protocols, to patients with thin-liquid dysphagia. Objectives: A controlled pilot study of a free water protocol was undertaken at Riverview Health Centre, in Winnipeg, Manitoba to assess benefits, feasibility and possible complications of free water protocol. Methods: The study examined 16 individuals with stroke or ABI who were randomly assigned to either a control group on thickened fluids (six subjects) or a treatment group (ten subjects) that followed a free water protocol. The average length of time in the study was 4.3 weeks with a range of 1 - 17 weeks among all participants. Results: Throughout the study, there was no incidence of pneumonia in any of the sixteen participants. No statistically significant difference was noted in the weekly total liquid intake between the treatment group and the control group. Perceived swallowing related care results suggest statistically significant improvements from initial to final measures for both the treatment group (p = 0.004) and the control group (p = 0.02). However, a comparison of the change in both measures, between the treatment and control groups, shows no statistically significant differences. Conclusion: This pilot study suggests the need for larger scale work in order to more accurately identify the effects of free water protocols.
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 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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".