OROPHARYNGEAL DYSPHAGIA: AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN DYSPHAGIA LEVEL, SYMPTOMS AND COMORBIDITY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Associate levels of dysphagia according to the patient health condition. Methods: Retrospective study analyzing 149 medical records of patients who underwent Fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) in a tertiary hospital from 2016 to 2018. Data was collected on symptoms, comorbidities, FESS findings and oropharynx dysphagia classification. Statistical analysis was performed through descriptive and bivariate analysis using the Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests with a 5% significance level. Results: Most patients are elderly, female and with the main complaint of gagging for liquids and solids (30.9%), and gagging only for liquids was associated with the presence of mild dysphagia. The most prevalent degree of oropharynx dysphagia (OD) was mild (45%). In relation to patients' diseases, associations were identified between amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and mild dysphagia, Parkinson's disease and moderate dysphagia, and past pneumonia and / or head and neck cancer with severe dysphagia. Conclusions: The main complaint of patients with dysphagia and their pathological history should guide the treatment, without dispensing with complementary exams such as FESS, highlighting Parkinson's disease with moderate oropharynx dysphagia and past pneumonia and / or head and neck cancer as severe dysphagia.
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) | 0.002 | 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".