Clinical application of ICF key codes to evaluate patients with dysphagia following stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was aimed to identify and evaluate the International Classification of Functioning (ICF) key codes for dysphagia in stroke patients. Thirty patients with dysphagia after stroke were enrolled in our study. To evaluate the ICF dysphagia scale, 6 scales were used as comparisons, namely the Barthel Index (BI), Repetitive Saliva Swallowing Test (RSST), Kubota Water Swallowing Test (KWST), Frenchay Dysarthria Assessment, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Multiple regression analysis was performed to quantitate the relationship between the ICF scale and the other 7 scales. In addition, 60 ICF scales were analyzed by the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) method. A total of 21 ICF codes were identified, which were closely related with the other scales. These included 13 codes from Body Function, 1 from Body Structure, 3 from Activities and Participation, and 4 from Environmental Factors. A topographic network map with 30 ICF key codes was also generated to visualize their relationships. The number of ICF codes identified is in line with other well-established evaluation methods. The network topographic map generated here could be used as an instruction tool in future evaluations. We also found that attention functions and biting were critical codes of these scales, and could be used as treatment targets.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".