The International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative (IDDSI) framework: the Kempen pilot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most common treatments for dysphagia is the provision of texture-modified food and thickened liquids. To improve patient safety, a standardised terminology has been advocated. In 2015, the International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative (IDDSI) framework was released. The IDDSI framework describes texture-modified food and thickened liquids for individuals of all ages, in all care settings and in all cultures. To put the IDDSI framework into operation, a pilot site in Kempen, Germany volunteered to conduct a quality assurance process to document IDDSI implementation. The process commenced on the neurology ward, with findings to inform roll-out to other wards and eventually other hospitals. Through wide stakeholder involvement using simultaneous top-down and bottom-up approaches and agreed timelines, the Kempen Pilot achieved implementation at ward level. Practical training, incorporating the IDDSI framework into a range of communication channels and inter-professional collaboration were key to successful implementation.
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 | 0.104 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".