Referral Criteria for Assessment and Treatment: In an Ambulatory Dysphagia Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dysphagia is highly prevalent in patients with chronic neurological disorders and can increase the risk for comorbidities such as aspiration pneumonia and malnutrition. Treatment includes timely access to interdisciplinary health care teams with specialized skills in dysphagia management. A retrospective chart review (n=99 of 125 charts screened) was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of referral criteria to identify and triage patients with suspected dysphagia to an ambulatory dysphagia clinic. Variables collected included demographic information (age), anthropometric information (body mass index [BMI], each patient's sex), reason for referral, primary medical diagnosis, symptomatology (e.g., pneumonia, chest congestion), nutrition and swallowing interventions, clinic wait times, missed/cancelled appointments, and referring health care professional. The mean age and mean BMI ± standard deviation of patients reviewed were 68.7 years ± 18.4 years and 25.2 kg/m² ± 6.7 kg/m², respectively. Average clinic wait times were 158 days (13 to 368 days) for routine and 52 days (0 to 344 days) for urgent assessments (p<0.001). The most common reason(s) for referral was/were related to dysphagia (n=83), surgery (n=50), and/or gastrointestinal symptomatology (n=28); 80% to 90% of patients received varying diagnostic and treatment services for dysphagia. Development of effective referral criteria is critical to ensure that clients with dysphagia receive timely diagnostic, treatment, and nutrition interventions by interdisciplinary health care teams specializing in dysphagia.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".