Profiles of Swallowing Impairment in a Cohort of Patients With Reduced Tongue Strength Within 3 Months of Cerebral Ischemic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patients with poststroke dysphagia may experience inefficient bolus clearance or inadequate airway protection. Following a stroke, impairments in lingual pressure generation capacity are thought to contribute to oropharyngeal dysphagia. The goal of our study was to determine whether similar profiles of swallowing impairment would be seen across a cohort of patients with reduced tongue strength within 3 months after cerebral ischemic stroke. METHOD: The sample comprised six adults with reduced tongue strength (i.e., maximum anterior isometric pressure < 40 kPa). Participants underwent a videofluoroscopy according to a standard protocol. Post hoc blinded ratings were completed using the Analysis of Swallowing Physiology: Events, Kinematics and Timing Method and coded as "typical" versus "atypical" (i.e., within vs. outside the healthy interquartile range) in comparison to published reference values. RESULTS: The videofluoroscopies suggested that having reduced tongue strength did not translate into a common profile. Of the six participants, two showed Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS) scores of ≥ 3 on thin liquids, associated with incomplete laryngeal vestibule closure (LVC). Another two participants displayed PAS scores of 2 (transient penetration), but these were not associated with incomplete LVC. Pharyngeal residue, above the healthy 75th percentile, was seen for three participants. Five participants presented with atypical reductions in hyoid XY peak position. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of adults within 3 months of cerebral ischemic stroke, reductions in tongue strength presented alongside a variety of changes in swallowing physiology. There was no straightforward relationship linking reduced tongue strength to particular patterns of impairment on videofluoroscopy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".