Variations in Tongue-Palate Swallowing Pressures When Swallowing Xanthan Gum-Thickened Liquids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thickened liquids are frequently recommended to reduce the risk of aspiration in patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia. Although it has previously been reported that tongue-palate pressures increase when swallowing spoon-thick and semi-solid consistencies compared to thin liquids, relatively little is known about how swallowing behaviors differ when swallowing liquids of nectar- or honey-thick consistency. Furthermore, previous studies have primarily used starch-based thickeners, and little is known about swallowing behaviors with xanthan gum-thickened liquids, which have recently been introduced for dysphagia management. In this study, we measured variations in tongue-palate pressures during the swallowing of liquids thickened to apparent viscosities of 190, 250, and 380 mPa s at 50/s using increasing concentrations of xanthan gum (0.5, 0.63 and 0.87 w/w%). The viscosity differences between these nectar- and honey-thick stimuli were confirmed to exceed sensory perceptual discrimination thresholds. Data were collected from 78 healthy adults in two sex-balanced age-groups (young; mature) and compared to reference values obtained during water swallowing. The results confirm that increased amplitudes of tongue-palate pressure were used when swallowing the thickened liquid stimuli, compared to swallows of water, and for the honey-thick liquid compared to the two nectar-thick liquids. Age-related reductions were seen in tongue strength but not in swallowing pressures, which fell below 40 % of maximum isometric pressure values. Thus, the use of xanthan gum-thickened liquids is unlikely to tax the swallowing system in terms of tongue pressure generation requirements, even in seniors with reduced maximum isometric tongue pressure measures.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".