Perception Versus Performance of Swallow Function in Residents of Long-Term Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine if older adults residing in long-term care were able to accurately self-report their swallowing status by comparing subjective complaints of dysphagia and objective methods of swallowing screening. Method Data were collected from 397 residents of long-term care ( M age = 86.8 years ± 7.8; 263 female). Cognitive impairment scores were collected, and each resident was asked (a) if they thought they had a swallowing problem, (b) if they coughed/choked when they ate, and (c) if they coughed/choked when they drank. These responses were compared to results of a swallowing screening tool and mealtime observations of coughing and choking. Results Residents who reported swallowing difficulties (10%, n = 41) were 8 times more likely to fail the swallowing screening ( p < .001); however, 80% of residents who failed the swallowing screening did not previously report that swallowing was an issue. There was no significant association between self-reports of coughing and choking at meals and observations. There was no difference in level of cognition between residents who accurately reported swallowing status and those who were inaccurate. Conclusions Residents are largely unable to accurately self-report swallowing difficulties and also have difficulty accurately reporting incidences of coughing and choking. These findings suggest that concerted efforts are required to implement regular, formal swallowing screening protocols in long-term care to objectively identify those at risk.
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 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".