Evaluation of the Modified Barium Swallow Study Conducted With and Without Radiologist Supervision: A Pre- and Post-Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Assess quality metrics of modified barium swallow studies (MBSS) with and without a radiologist present during the procedure. Methods: Retrospective review of MBSS performed on adult inpatients at a tertiary care hospital 6-months pre- and post-institutional change from having to not having a radiologist present during the examination. Factors assessed included: fluoroscopy time; study duration; number of cine loops; number of images; efficiency of collimation (using a 5-point scoring system); time to final report; radiologist-speech language pathologist report disagreement; and recalls for inadequate studies. Statistical analysis was via Welch’s t-test and a test of proportions for continuous and count data under the normal approximation. Results: 106 and 119 MBSS were analyzed from the radiologist present and radiologist absent periods, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found for: average fluoroscopy time (116.1 s vs. 126.9 s; P = 0.161); study duration (400.4 s vs. 417.3 s; P = 0.453); number of cine loops (9.3 vs. 10.2; P = 0.075); number of images (620.5 vs. 581.1; P = 0.350); or report disagreement. There was improved performance without the radiologist present for collimation (1.92 vs. 1.43; P = 0.003) and fewer non-diagnostic images (6.5 vs. 4.5; P = 0.001). Time to final report was longer with the radiologist absent due to more reports with significant delays. There were no repeated studies because of inadequate technique in either group. Conclusion: MBSS performed by technologists without radiologist supervision is not inferior to those performed with radiologist supervision on multiple performance measures. This supports technologist operated MBSS without radiologist supervision, while acknowledging a need to further address radiologist report time delay.
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 | 0.009 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".