Effects of Tongue Strength Training on Mealtime Function in Long-Term Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study was to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of an 8-week tongue-strengthening intervention protocol for seniors with mild to moderately severe cognitive impairment in the long-term care setting. Outcome measures of interest included tongue strength, mealtime duration, and food intake. METHOD: In this pre-post group study of treatment outcomes, data were collected from 7 adults (aged 84-99 years). Participants were observed across a series of mealtimes to determine mealtime duration and intake before and after 16 treatment sessions. During therapy, participants performed isometric strength exercises and tongue pressure accuracy tasks using the Iowa Oral Performance Instrument (model number 2.1, IOPI Medical). Differences in tongue strength as a function of treatment were explored between the first 3 and final 3 sessions using univariate repeated-measures analysis of variance. Single-subject methods were used to explore baseline and posttreatment data for measures of mealtime function. RESULTS: Anterior and posterior tongue strength increased significantly with therapy. There were no changes in mealtime function. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows proof of concept that some older adults with cognitive impairment are able to participate in a tongue-strengthening intervention and achieve improvements in tongue strength. Failure to find evidence of associated changes of mealtime function suggests that mealtime measures may not be directly sensitive to changes in tongue strength.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".