Temporal Sequence of Laryngeal Vestibule Closure and Reopening is Associated With Airway Protection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Upper esophageal sphincter opening (UESO), and laryngeal vestibule closure (LVC) are two essential kinematic events whose timings are crucial for adequate bolus clearance and airway protection during swallowing. Their temporal characteristics can be quantified through time-consuming analysis of videofluoroscopic swallow studies (VFSS). OBJECTIVES: We sought to establish a model to predict the odds of penetration or aspiration during swallowing based on 15 temporal factors of UES and laryngeal vestibule kinematics. METHODS: Manual temporal measurements and ratings of penetration and aspiration were conducted on a videofluoroscopic dataset of 408 swallows from 99 patients. A generalized estimating equation model was deployed to analyze association between individual factors and the risk of penetration or aspiration. RESULTS: The results indicated that the latencies of laryngeal vestibular events and the time lapse between UESO onset and LVC were highly related to penetration or aspiration. The predictive model incorporating patient demographics and bolus presentation showed that delayed LVC by 0.1 s or delayed LVO by 1% of the swallow duration (average 0.018 s) was associated with a 17.19% and 2.68% increase in odds of airway invasion, respectively. CONCLUSION: This predictive model provides insight into kinematic factors that underscore the interaction between the intricate timing of laryngeal kinematics and airway protection. Recent investigation in automatic noninvasive or videofluoroscopic detection of laryngeal kinematics would provide clinicians access to objective measurements not commonly quantified in VFSS. Consequently, the temporal and sequential understanding of these kinematics may interpret such measurements to an estimation of the risk of aspiration or penetration which would give rise to rapid computer-assisted dysphagia diagnosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Laryngoscope, 133:521-527, 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".