Quantitative Videofluoroscopic Analysis of Swallowing Physiology and Function in Individuals With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Dysphagia is a serious extra pulmonary manifestation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, the nature of abnormalities in swallowing physiology in COPD has yet to be clearly established. We explored the frequency of swallowing measures outside the healthy reference range in adults with COPD. Method Participants were 28 adults aged 41–79 years (18 men, 20 women) with stable COPD. Disease severity was classified as GOLD (Global Initiative For Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) Stages 1 (4%), 2 (25%), 3 (53%), and 4 (18%). Participants underwent a videofluoroscopy and swallowed 20% w/v thin barium in, followed by 20% w/v mildly, moderately, and extremely thick barium prepared with a xanthan gum thickener. Blinded duplicate ratings of swallowing safety, efficiency, kinematics, and timing were performed according to the ASPEKT method (Analysis of Swallowing Physiology: Events, Kinematics and Timing). Comparison data for healthy adults aged < 60 years were extracted from an existing data set. Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests compared the frequencies of measures falling < 1 SD / > 1 SD from mean reference values (or < the first or > the third quartile for skewed parameters). Results Participants with COPD did not display greater frequencies of penetration–aspiration, but they were significantly more likely ( p < .05) to display incomplete laryngeal vestibule closure (LVC), longer time-to-LVC, and shorter LVC duration. They also displayed significantly higher frequencies of short upper esophageal sphincter opening, reduced pharyngeal constriction, and pharyngeal residue. Conclusion This analysis reveals differences in swallowing physiology in patients with stable COPD characterized by impaired safety related to the mechanism, timing, and duration of LVC and by impaired swallowing efficiency with increased pharyngeal residue related to poor pharyngeal constriction.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".