Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Dysphagia: What Have We Learned So Far and What Do We Still Need to Investigate?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Dysphagia is an underrecognized concern in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and may contribute to disease exacerbations. In this review article, we share information regarding dysphagia in people with COPD, synthesizing knowledge both from the literature and from studies performed in the context of a multidisciplinary clinical pulmonary rehabilitation program at the Federal University of Santa Maria in Brazil. Results This narrative review presents evidence showing that awareness of dysphagia and patient-reported symptoms of dysphagia are rare in individuals with stable COPD. However, evidence from the routine collection of patient-reported symptom data using the Eating Assessment Tool 10 and about dysphagia-related quality of life using the Swallowing Quality of Life questionnaire do suggest that dysphagia is experienced by some individuals with COPD. Several studies suggest that patients with stable COPD present with altered swallowing physiology on videofluoroscopic exams, including silent aspiration in a small number of these individuals. However, both patient self-report and clinical screening using the Volume–Viscosity Swallowing Test have been found to be poor predictors of these videofluoroscopic findings. We discuss the possibility that altered laryngeal sensation and respiratory–swallow discoordination play a role in dysphagia in people with COPD, and highlight assessment tasks that appear to have the highest sensitivity for detecting penetration–aspiration in this population. Finally, we review preliminary evidence suggesting that physical therapy techniques targeting altered respiratory muscle biomechanics may benefit swallowing in people with COPD. Knowledge gaps requiring further research are identified, and implications for clinical practice are discussed.
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 | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".