Creation and Initial Validation of the International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative Functional Diet Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess consensual validity, interrater reliability, and criterion validity of the International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative Functional Diet Scale, a new functional outcome scale intended to capture the severity of oropharyngeal dysphagia, as represented by the degree of diet texture restriction recommended for the patient. DESIGN: Participants assigned International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative Functional Diet Scale scores to 16 clinical cases. Consensual validity was measured against reference scores determined by an author reference panel. Interrater reliability was measured overall and across quartile subsets of the dataset. Criterion validity was evaluated versus Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS) scores assigned by survey respondents to the same case scenarios. Feedback was requested regarding ease and likelihood of use. SETTING: Web-based survey. PARTICIPANTS: Respondents (N=170) from 29 countries. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Consensual validity (percent agreement and Kendall τ), criterion validity (Spearman rank correlation), and interrater reliability (Kendall concordance and intraclass coefficients). RESULTS: The International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative Functional Diet Scale showed strong consensual validity, criterion validity, and interrater reliability. Scenarios involving liquid-only diets, transition from nonoral feeding, or trial diet advances in therapy showed the poorest consensus, indicating a need for clear instructions on how to score these situations. The International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative Functional Diet Scale showed greater sensitivity than the FOIS to specific changes in diet. Most (>70%) respondents indicated enthusiasm for implementing the International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative Functional Diet Scale. CONCLUSIONS: This initial validation study suggests that the International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative Functional Diet Scale has strong consensual and criterion validity and can be used reliably by clinicians to capture diet texture restriction and progression in people with dysphagia.
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 | 0.064 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".