MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159281044 · doi:10.52010/ijom.2015.41.1.1

Oral and oral preparatory phase of swallowing in children with tonsil hypertrophy: Videofluoroscopy study

2015· article· en· W3159281044 on OpenAlexaff
Tais Helena Grechi, Carla E. Itikawa, Fernanda Gallarreta, Fabiana Cardoso Pereira Valera, Wilma Therezinha Anselmo-Lima, Roberto Oliveira Dantas, Luciana Vitaliano Voi Trawitzki

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Orofacial Myology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDysphagia Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSwallowingMedicineBolus (digestion)DysphagiaTonsilOcclusionDentistryMuscle hypertrophyInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this research was to determine the effect of respiratory obstruction due tonsils hypertrophy on bolus organization, lip posture, bolus propulsion, and on associated head and mandible movements during the preparatory oral and oral phases of swallowing in children. This is a transversal study in children with tonsils hypertrophy (Group 1 -n = 21, 8 girls and 13 boys; mean age 4.5 years) and nasal breathers children without tonsils hypertrophy (Group 2 -n = 10, 4 girls and 6 boys; mean age 4.6 years). The groups were evaluated for respiratory patterns (oroscopy, anterior rhinoscopy and nasopharyngoendoscopy), dental evaluation and videofluoroscopy of swallowing, for liquids and paste food. No significant differences were detected (p>0.05) between groups regarding liquid volume ingested, bolus organization, lip posture, bolus propulsion, or the presence of associated head and mandible movements. The results indicate that respiratory obstruction caused by tonsil hypertrophy in children with normal occlusion did not influence the variables studied regarding the preparatory oral and oral phases of swallowing for both consistencies.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.463
Teacher spread0.399 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Orofacial MyologySame topicDysphagia Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207