Effects of Cued and Uncued Swallowing in Patients With Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Parameters such as bolus location at swallow onset (BLSO), stage transition duration (STD), pharyngeal transition duration (PTD), pharyngeal response duration (PRD), and pharyngeal phase duration (PPD) often vary between cued and uncued swallowing conditions. Research has demonstrated that cued swallows may offer functional benefits that mitigate pathophysiological processes. However, there are limited data assessing differences between cued and uncued swallows in disordered populations, such as dementia. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if cued swallowing alters swallowing biomechanics in patients living with dementia. Method: Through a retrospective analysis of videofluoroscopic swallow studies (VFSS), 105 swallows from 26 participants living with dementia ( M age = 81 years; 14 women) were analyzed in duplicate by blinded raters using the Analysis of Swallowing Physiology, Events, Kinematics, and Timing method. Only VFSS with at least one cued and one uncued swallow were included in the analysis. Chi-square tests were used to explore differences in BLSO. Repeated-measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to explore differences in STD, PTD, PRD, and PPD. Results: Results revealed no significant differences in BLSO between cued and uncued swallows for patients living with dementia ( p = .934). Repeated-measures ANOVAs revealed no significant differences between the two types of swallows for STD ( p = .995), PTD ( p = .864), PRD ( p = .807), or PPD ( p = .660). Conclusions: This study suggests that there may be limited benefit to providing cued swallows to individuals living with dementia. Further research should investigate if this is due to impaired cognition and/or changes in motor control to volitionally complete the cued swallow.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".