A Preliminary Investigation of Similarities of High Resolution Cervical Auscultation Signals Between Thin Liquid Barium and Water Swallows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dysphagia, commonly referred to as abnormal swallowing, affects millions of people annually. If not diagnosed expeditiously, dysphagia can lead to more severe complications, such as pneumonia, nutritional deficiency, and dehydration. Bedside screening is the first step of dysphagia characterization and is usually based on pass/fail tests in which a nurse observes the patient performing water swallows to look for dysphagia overt signs such as coughing. Though quick and convenient, bedside screening only provides low-level judgment of impairment, lacks standardization, and suffers from subjectivity. Recently, high resolution cervical auscultation (HRCA) has been investigated as a less expensive and non-invasive method to diagnose dysphagia. It has shown strong preliminary evidence of its effectiveness in penetration-aspiration detection as well as multiple swallow kinematics. HRCA signals have traditionally been collected and investigated in conjunction with videofluoroscopy exams which are performed using barium boluses including thin liquid. An HRCA-based bedside screening is highly desirable to expedite the initial dysphagia diagnosis and overcome all the drawbacks of the current pass/fail screening tests. However, all research conducted for using HRCA in dysphagia is based on thin liquid barium boluses and thus not guaranteed to provide valid results for water boluses used in bedside screening. If HRCA signals show no significant differences between water and thin liquid barium boluses, then the same algorithms developed on thin liquid barium boluses used in diagnostic imaging studies, it can be then directly used with water boluses. This study investigates the similarities and differences between HRCA signals from thin liquid barium swallows compared to those signals from water swallows. Multiple features from the time, frequency, time-frequency, and information-theoretic domain were extracted from each type of swallow and a group of linear mixed models was tested to determine the significance of differences. Machine learning classifiers were fit to the data as well to determine if the swallowed material (thin liquid barium or water) can be correctly predicted from an unlabeled set of HRCA signals. The results demonstrated that there is no systematic difference between the HRCA signals of thin liquid barium swallows and water swallows. While no systematic difference was discovered, the evidence of complete conformity between HRCA signals of both materials was inconclusive. These results must be validated further to confirm conformity between the HRCA signals of thin liquid barium swallows and water swallows.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".