MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3038287147 · doi:10.1044/2020_ajslp-20-00042

The Risk of Penetration–Aspiration Related to Residue in the Pharynx

2020· article· en· W3038287147 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDysphagia Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsPharynxResidue (chemistry)Penetration (warfare)MedicineAnatomyChemistryMathematicsOperations researchBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Reference data from healthy adults under the age of 60 years suggest that the 75th and 95th percentiles for pharyngeal residue on swallows of thin liquids are 1% and 3%(C2-4) 2 , respectively. We explored how pharyngeal residue below versus above these values prior to a swallow predicts penetration–aspiration. Method The study involved retrospective analysis of a previous research data set from 305 adults at risk for dysphagia. Participants swallowed six thin boluses and three each of mildly, moderately, and extremely thick barium in videofluoroscopy. Raters measured preswallow residue in %(C2-4) 2 units and Penetration–Aspiration Scale (PAS) scores for each swallow. Swallows were classified as (a) “clean baseline” (with no preswallow residue), (b) “clearing” swallows of residue with no new material added, or (c) swallows of “additional material” plus preswallow residue. Frequencies of PAS scores of ≥ 3 were compared across swallow type by consistency according to residue severity (i.e., ≤ vs. > 1%(C2-4) 2 and ≤ vs. > 3%(C2-4) 2 . Results The data set comprised 2,541 clean baseline, 209 clearing, and 1,722 swallows of additional material. On clean baseline swallows, frequencies of PAS scores of ≥ 3 were 5% for thin and mildly thick liquids and 1% for moderately/extremely thick liquids. Compared to clean baseline swallows, the odds of penetration–aspiration on thin liquids increased 4.60-fold above the 1% threshold and 4.20-fold above the 3% threshold (mildly thick: 2.11-fold > 1%(C2-4) 2 , 2.26-fold > 3%(C2-4) 2 ). PAS scores of ≥ 3 did not occur with clearing swallows of moderately/extremely thick liquids. Lower frequencies of above-threshold preswallow residue were seen for swallows of additional material than for clearing swallows. Compared to clean baseline swallows, the odds of PAS scores of ≥ 3 on swallows of additional material increased ≥ 1.86-fold above the 1% threshold and ≥ 2.15-fold above the 3% threshold, depending on consistency. Conclusion The data suggest that a pharyngeal residue threshold of 1%(C2-4) 2 is a meaningful cut-point for delineating increased risk of penetration–aspiration on a subsequent swallow.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.474
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.364 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it