Swallowing Sound Characteristics in Healthy and Dysphagic Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a non-invasive, acoustic-based method to differentiate between individuals with and without dysphagia or swallowing dysfunction. Swallowing sound signals, both normal and abnormal (i.e., at risk of some degree of dysphagia) were recorded with an accelerometer over the trachea. Segmentation based on waveform dimension trajectory (WDT, a distance-based technique) was developed to segment the non-stationary swallowing sound signals. Two characteristic sections emerged, Opening and Transmission, and 24 characteristic features were extracted and subsequently reduced via discriminant analysis. A discriminant algorithm was also employed for classification, with the system trained and tested using the leave-one-out approach. Overall, 350 signals were used from three bolus consistencies (semisolid, thick and thin liquids). A final screening algorithm correctly classified 13 of 15 control subjects and 11 of 11 subjects with some degree of dysphagia and/or neurological impairments. The proposed method has great potential to reduce the need for videofluoroscopic swallowing studies (the current gold standard method for swallowing assessment, which is invasive and non-portable) and the overall clinical assessment of swallowing sound signals.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".