Fiber-optic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing to assess swallowing outcomes as a function of head position in a normal population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Head position practice has been shown to influence pill-swallowing ability, but the impact of head position on measures of swallowing outcomes has not yet been studied with fiber-optic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES). The primary purpose of this study was to determine whether head position impacts penetration-aspiration scale scores and/or post-swallow pharyngeal residue as assessed by FEES. Documenting the incidence of pharyngeal residue and laryngeal penetration and aspiration in a normal population was a secondary goal. METHODS: Adults without swallowing difficulties (N = 84) were taught a pill swallowing technique based on learning five head positions and were asked to practice with small, hard candies (e.g., TicTacs) for two weeks. Then they demonstrated swallowing in each of the head positions for two conditions, liquid and purée, while undergoing FEES. RESULTS: Out of 840 examined swallows, one event of aspiration and 5 events of penetration occurred. During practice >50% participants found positions they preferred over the center position for swallowing but head position was not associated with penetration-aspiration scores assessed by FEES. Significant associations and non-significant trends were found between pharyngeal residue and three variables: age, most preferred head position, and least preferred head position. CONCLUSION: Head position during swallowing (head up) and age greater than 40 years may result in increased pharyngeal residue but not laryngeal penetration or aspiration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".