Death by Choking or Dysphagia: A Review of Coronial Findings (Australia and Canada): A Picture of Preventable Death, Non-adherence to Written Recommendations, and Lack of Appropriate Supervision.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Choking and aspiration pneumonia are a leading cause of preventable death for people in residential care in Australia. In Victoria, in 2018-2019, 59% of deaths of persons in residential care that were referred to the coroner were from aspiration pneumonia. In 2016-2017, in New South Wales, the leading cause of death in people with disability living in residential care was pneumonitis caused by solids and fluids in the lungs. Such deaths are closely linked with swallowing problems (dysphagia) and people with cognitive impairments and multiple health issues, including mental health issues, are most at risk. This commentary focuses on coronial inquests where coroners' findings have identified dysphagia or aspiration pneumonia as a cause of death or a contributor to a person's death. It also includes a summary of the recommendations by coroners which highlight processes that should be implemented to improve the safety of people with dysphagia.
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 | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".