A clinical perspective on lifelong deglutition: What do we do when it does not work?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Swallowing and breathing are two vital processes necessary to sustain human life. These acts require precise coordination given their biomechanical interdependence as characterized by their shared anatomy, neurophysiological regulation and function (Miller, Bieger, & Conklin, 1997; Shaw & Martino, 2013). Whether or not a swallow is competent is governed not only by the integrity of its anatomy but also by multiple factors including those that are: systemically mediated, part of the external environment or any combination thereof. As a result, the traditional swallowing phases, as they evolve over the lifespan of an individual, are best understood by taking a cross‐systems perspective (Martin‐Harris, Brodsky, et al., 2005; Matsuo & Palmer, 2009). This approach is the cornerstone of innovative assessment and management techniques for oropharyngeal dysphagia (or disordered swallowing), which supports subdivisions of the swallowing phases. This modern perspective affords the opportunity to ascertain the subtleties of the swallow's anatomical symbiosis with other processes, its intricate physiology all while opening the door to novel dysphagia intervention. This session will: 1) outline the anatomical and physiological differences between reflexive and volitional swallows, 2) explore a cross‐systems approach to understanding swallowing anatomy and physiology across the lifespan, and 3) review clinical cases that highlight the importance of anatomical and biomechanical integrity during swallowing. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".