The association between a mixing ability test and patient reported chewing ability in patients treated for oral malignancies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Mastication has been assessed in several ways in the past. Both patients reported and objective assessment methods have been developed. The University Medical Center (UMC) Utrecht has developed a mixing ability test (MAT) using a two-coloured wax tablet. The present study investigates the association between the mixing ability test and a chewing related questionnaire in patients treated for oral malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a cohort study, patients treated for oral malignancies were assessed 4-6 weeks before and 4-6 weeks after treatment, as well as 6 months, 1 year and 5 years after treatment. The mixing ability test was assessed using 10 and 20 chewing strokes and was compared to seven questions about several aspects of mastication. Regression analysis was performed and density plots were drawn for statistical analysis. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-three patients were included in this study. The questionnaire was less predictive for the 10-chewing stroke test and the test was less discriminatory for different food types than the 20-chewing stroke mixing ability test. Three questions about the ability to chew solid, soft and thickened liquid food types were found to be significantly predictive for the 20-chewing stroke test. Threshold values on the mixing ability index were around 20 for the ability to chew solid food types and 24 for soft food types. CONCLUSION: The 10-chewing stroke mixing ability test is less suitable than 20-chewing strokes for patients with and treated for oral cancer. The 20-chewing stroke mixing ability test has a fair association with self-reported outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".