The American <scp>Broncho‐Esophagological</scp> Association Position Statement on Swallowing Fluoroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To develop an expert consensus statement on the clinical use of swallowing fluoroscopy in adults that reduces practice variation and identifies opportunities for quality improvement in the care of patients suffering from swallowing impairment. METHODOLOGY: A search strategist reviewed data sources (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus) to use as evidence for an expert development group to compose statements focusing on areas of controversy regarding swallowing fluoroscopy. Candidate statements underwent two iterations of a modified Delphi protocol to reach consensus. RESULTS: A total of 2184 publications were identified for title and abstract review with 211 publications meeting the criteria for full text review. Of these, 148 articles were included for review. An additional 116 publications were also included after reviewing the references of the full text publications from the initial search. These 264 references guided the authors to develop 41 candidate statements in various categories. Forty statements encompassing patient selection, fluoroscopic study choice, radiation safety, clinical team dynamics, training requirements, videofluoroscopic swallow study and esophagram techniques, and interpretation of swallowing fluoroscopy met criteria for consensus. One statement on esophagram technique reached near-consensus. CONCLUSIONS: These 40 statements pertaining to the comprehensive use of swallowing fluoroscopy in adults can guide the development of best practices, improve quality and safety of care, and influence policy in both the outpatient and inpatient settings. The lack of consensus on some aspects of esophagram technique likely reflects gaps in knowledge and clinical practice variation and should be a target for future research. Laryngoscope, 133:255-268, 2023.
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 | 0.082 | 0.131 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
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".