Effects of age and viscosity on food transport and breathing–swallowing coordination during eating of two‐phase food in nursing home residents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: When eating food that contains both liquid and solid phases, the liquid component frequently enters the hypopharynx before swallowing and can increase the risk of aspiration. Thus, we examined whether the initial viscosity of mixed consistency food could alter pre-swallow food transport and breathing-swallowing coordination in older adults. METHODS: Fiberoptic endoscopy was recorded while 18 healthy young adults and 19 older adults ate 5 g of steamed rice combined with 3 mL of blue-dye water. Liquid viscosity was set at three levels by the addition of a thickening agent (0 wt%, thin; 2 wt%, thicker; 4 wt%, higher-viscosity, respectively). We measured the timing of swallow initiation and its corresponding respiratory phase for each participant. RESULTS: For thin mixed consistency food, whereas the timing of swallow initiation was comparable between young and older participants, swallowing was initiated during inspiration significantly more often in older participants (31.6 %) than in young participants (5.6 %). In contrast, the timing of swallow initiation was delayed in older participants for thicker and higher-viscosity foods, although swallowing was commonly initiated during expiration in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In older adults, we observed that swallow initiation function was preserved for thin mixed consistency samples, but breathing-swallowing coupling was diminished. For higher-viscosity foods, swallow initiation was delayed in this group, but breathing-swallowing coordination was not disturbed, probably as a result of the slow bolus flow into the hypopharynx. Thus, it appears the initial viscosity of mixed consistency food profoundly affects food transport before swallowing as well as breathing-swallowing coordination in nursing home residents. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2017; 17: 2171-2177.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".