MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137273164 · doi:10.4021/gr270w

Swallowing Evaluation in Patients With Unilateral Vocal Fold Immobility

2011· article· en· W2137273164 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Geruza Costa Gonzaga Anéas

Bibliographic record

VenueGastroenterology Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDysphagia Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSwallowingMedicineBolus (digestion)LarynxTransit timeAnesthesiaSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Unilateral vocal fold immobility is the neurological disorder most frequently seen in the larynx that may cause swallowing dysfunction. The objective of this investigation was to evaluate the oral and pharyngeal phases of swallowing in patients with unilateral vocal fold immobility. METHODS: It was evaluated by videofluoroscopy of the swallowing of 14 patients with unilateral vocal fold immobility and 11 control subjects. The examination was performed with swallows of 5 mL and 10 mL of liquid and paste boluses. The oral transit, pharyngeal transit and clearance, the duration of upper esophageal sphincter (UES) transit, the duration of the hyoid movement, and the timing of the events were measured. RESULTS: With swallows of 10 mL of liquid bolus (controls: 0.23 ± 0.04s, patients: 0.27 ± 0.05s, p = 0.03) and 5 mL of paste bolus (controls: 0.18 ± 0.04s, patients: 0.22 ± 0.04s, p = 0.01) there was a longer duration of UES transit in patients compared with controls. The UES opened earlier in the control subjects with the increase in bolus volume from 5 mL to 10 mL (p < 0.05), an effect that was not seen in patients with vocal fold immobility. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that patients with unilateral vocal fold immobility may have alteration of bolus transit through the UES and have no adaptation in the swallowing timing related to the increase in bolus volume.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGastroenterology ResearchSame topicDysphagia Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207