Oral aspiration, type 1 laryngeal cleft, and respiratory tract infections in canadian inuit children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian Inuit infants suffer the highest rate of lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI's) in the world. The causes of this are incompletely understood. The primary objective of this study was to determine whether there exists an association between respiratory morbidity and oral aspiration in Inuit children. A retrospective chart review was conducted including children from Nunavut who underwent Video Fluoroscopic Swallowing Study between the years of 2001 to 2015. The primary outcome was hospitalization for LRTI. We hypothesized that infants found to have aspiration would experience a higher rate of admissions for LRTI than those with normal swallowing studies. One-hundred and twenty-seven patients were identified, of whom 94 were included. Fifty-six percent of patients had an abnormal swallowing study. Compared with patients with normal swallowing, the incidence rate of LRTI was higher in patients with aspiration (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.51; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.23-1.87) and in patients with penetration (IRR = 1.40; 95% CI = 1.11-1.76). Fourteen percent of patients had confirmed laryngeal cleft; patients with confirmed presence of this also had a higher incidence rate of LRTI (IRR = 1.66; 95% CI = 1.32-2.07). The incidence of abnormal swallowing study showed an 11-fold variation across the five regions in Nunavut, with the highest prevalence in west Qikiqtani Region (Baffin Island). We conclude that swallowing dysfunction is not only prevalent amongst Canadian Inuit but clinically significant. This is the first study to demonstrate an association between swallowing dysfunction and respiratory morbidity in this population. Geographic distribution patterns and high rates of laryngeal cleft may point to a potential genetic etiology for what remains at this point, idiopathic swallowing dysfunction.
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 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".