Comparison of clinical and videofluoroscopic evaluation of children with feeding and swallowing difficulties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were threefold: (1) to evaluate the accuracy of clinical evaluation compared with videofluoroscopic swallowing studies (VFSSs) in the detection of penetration and aspiration in children of age 0 to 15 years presenting with feeding and swallowing problems; (2) to assess the relationship between therapists' confidence ratings in making judgements about the presence or absence of penetration and aspiration, and the accuracy of their evaluation as confirmed by VFSSs; (3) to identify clinical predictors of penetration and aspiration during clinical evaluation of children with feeding and swallowing difficulties. We used a prospective study to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of a diagnostic clinical evaluation compared with VFSSs (criterion standard). Clinical evaluation and videofluoroscopy forms for oral motor and swallowing evaluation, which included potential indicators of aspiration, were designed for this project. Seventy-five children with feeding problems participated (33 females, 42 males; age range 0 to 14 years, mean 2 years; 62% of participants younger than 12 months). For fluids, clinical evaluation showed a sensitivity of 92% for aspiration. For solids, sensitivity for detecting aspiration was 33%. Analysis of the therapists' mean confidence ratings compared with the accuracy of their judgement demonstrated that when therapists were very sure that the child was aspirating or penetrating or not, they were correct. When the therapists were unsure, then the accuracy of prediction was not as good. Cough was the most significant predictor (p < 0.05) of fluid aspiration and penetration. We conclude that clinical evaluation with experienced clinicians can detect aspiration and penetration of fluids in children of varied ages and diagnoses, but that it is not accurate with solids.
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 | 0.003 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".