Determining the Impact of Thickened Liquids on Swallowing in Patients Undergoing Irradiation for Oropharynx Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current standard for the treatment of oropharynx cancers is radiation therapy. However, patients are frequently left with dysphagia characterized by penetration‐aspiration (impaired safety) and residue (impaired efficiency). Although thickened liquids are commonly used to manage dysphagia, we lack evidence to guide the modification of liquids for clinical benefit in the head and neck cancer population. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of slightly and mildly thick liquids on penetration‐aspiration and residue in 12 patients with oropharyngeal cancer who displayed penetration‐aspiration on thin liquid within 3 to 6 months after completion of radiotherapy. Significantly fewer instances of penetration‐aspiration were seen with slightly and mildly thick liquids as compared with thin (P <. 05). No differences were found across stimuli in the frequency of residue. Patients with oropharyngeal cancers who present with post–radiation therapy dysphagia involving penetration‐aspiration on thin liquids may benefit from slightly and mildly thick liquids without risk of worse residue.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".