Dysphagia characteristics in Huntington’s disease patients: insights from the Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing and the Swallowing Disturbances Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Huntington's disease (HD) is a neurodegenerative disease characterized by increasing dysphagia as the disease progresses. Specific characteristics of the HD dysphagia are not well defined. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the swallowing disturbances of HD patients, to evaluate the feasibility of Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES) in assessing dysphagia in HD patients, and to discern the relation between FEES findings and patients' self-report on dysphagia symptoms and swallowing related quality of life (SWAL-QOL). METHOD: A retrospective case series in a tertiary referral center. All recruited HD patients underwent Bed Side Swallowing Evaluation (BSE), FEES, the Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale (UHDRS), and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). All completed the Swallowing Disturbances Questionnaire (SDQ) and the SWAL-QOL questionnaire. RESULTS: Fourteen HD patients were recruited. All were able to complete the FEES study. The FEES demonstrated delayed swallowing reflex, solid food residues, and pre/post swallowing spillage in most patients (50%, 53.5%, 83.3%, and 87.5%, respectively). The mean SDQ score was 13.2. Significant correlations were found between the SWAL-QOL fear of eating score; the SDQ oral, pharyngeal, and total scores; and the FEES parameters of pureed and solid food bolus flow time. Significant correlations were also found between the total UHDRS score, the volitional cough score, and the SWAL-QOL disease burden score. CONCLUSION: HD patients exhibit prominent unique oropharyngeal dysphagia features that may serve as a marker of disease progression. The FEES and the SDQ are valuable tools for detecting these features in HD patients with swallowing disturbance.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".