A review of swallow timing in the elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many studies evaluate dysphagia in elderly patients and compare their swallowing to younger controls to assess the degree of swallowing impairment. Previous research suggests that changes should be expected in swallowing due to aging, and these changes need to be considered when performing swallowing assessments. A systematic review was conducted to elucidate the timing of swallowing in healthy. A comprehensive multiengine literature search was conducted to find articles studying swallowing in the healthy elderly, which yielded 22,852 articles of which 11 were judged to be relevant. Only articles using videofluoroscopy as an assessment method for swallowing timing were included. The articles underwent detailed review for study quality and data extraction. The eleven studies contained data for 32 different parameters, and 10 of the 11 studies compared elderly subjects to a younger group. Timing measures from the studies were compiled for analysis. In general, bolus transit times do not appear to change with age. Of note, elderly subjects tended to have a significantly delayed swallow response times and longer duration of upper esophageal sphincter opening. Results showed a large degree of variability across studies for each of the timing measures. Confidence intervals for timing in healthy older participants were computed across studies. Potential sources of variation were identified, including methodological, stimulus-related and participant-related sources. The results suggests that aging affects only a few very specific swallowing timing parameters, and many parameters appear to be unaffected by aging. Therefore, significant differences from a young reference sample should be interpreted as dysphagia rather than normal changes due to aging.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".