Respiratory–Swallow Coordination in Healthy Adults During Drinking of Thin to Extremely Thick Liquids: A Research Note
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Respiratory–swallow coordination is vital for airway protection, preventing aspiration, or penetration of foreign material into the airway. With the implementation of the International Dysphagia Diet Standardization Initiative definitions for different liquid consistencies used in dysphagia management, it is important to establish whether respiratory–swallow coordination patterns differ across these consistencies. This study aimed to evaluate respiratory behaviors during swallowing across the spectrum from thin to extremely thick liquids in healthy adults less than 60 years of age. Method Thirty healthy adults, aged 21–55 years, each consumed 54 naturally sized cup sips or spoonfuls of liquid stimuli prepared in thin, slightly thick, mildly thick, moderately thick, and extremely thick consistencies. Half of the stimuli were prepared using barium and half with a lemon-flavored water. Concurrent respiratory and swallowing pressure signals were collected to evaluate the respiratory phase pattern and pause duration associated with the swallow. Results An expiration–swallow–expiration pattern was the dominant respiratory phase pattern, observed in 92.7% of the trials, with no significant effect of consistency. Respiratory pause duration was found to be significantly shorter with barium stimuli (0.73 s) compared to nonbarium stimuli (0.78 s) (p< .001, Cohen'sd= .2), with no notable effects based on the factors of sex or liquid consistency. Conclusions In a convenience sample of healthy adults under the age of 60 years, consistent respiratory–swallow phasing and stable timing across the spectrum from thin to extremely thick liquids was observed. The data from this study can serve as preliminary reference data to which assessment information for individuals with dysphagia or respiratory challenges can be compared.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".