The Modified Barium Swallow Study for Oropharyngeal Dysphagia: Recommendations From an Interdisciplinary Expert Panel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Dysphagia occurs as a component of a wide variety of diseases and conditions. When unrecognized or poorly managed, dysphagia can result in malnutrition, volume depletion, and reduced quality of life, as well as aspiration, pneumonia, and death. This document focuses specifically on oropharyngeal dysphagia. The modified barium swallow study (MBSS) is a fluoroscopic motion study used to evaluate oropharyngeal anatomy and swallowing physiology in real time. It is typically performed by a speech-language pathologist together with a radiologist and often assisted by a radiologic technologist. Because oropharyngeal dysphagia has such a varied presentation, the guidance to diagnose and treat oropharyngeal dysphagia in the United States falls under the purview of several professional societies and organizations. However, a thorough review of available practice guidelines and appropriateness criteria issued to date reveals a deficit of up-to-date, comprehensive, evidence-based information on the diagnosis and evaluation of oropharyngeal dysphagia. Specifically, a lack of quality guidance on the ordering, performance, and reporting of the MBSS has hindered efforts to improve standardization and ensure quality continuity of care. Method In 2019, a group with expertise in oropharyngeal dysphagia (speech-language pathologists, radiologists, and referring physicians) convened with the goal of specifying a core set of expert recommendations/best practices to achieve a high-quality MBSS. Results Here, we present the results of the participants' discussions and provide consensus recommendations regarding ordering, performing, and reporting an MBSS. Conclusion The overarching goal of this summary is to emphasize the need for and encourage the development of MBSS practice guidelines to support clinicians and patients.
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 | 0.107 | 0.146 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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".