Which Videofluoroscopy Parameters Are Susceptible to the Influence of Differences in Barium Product and Concentration?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prior studies suggest there may be differences in videofluoroscopic measures of swallowing across different barium concentrations. Whether different barium products of identical concentration result in similar swallowing physiology remains unknown. This is important, as barium intended for videofluoroscopy (i.e., Bracco Varibar) is not available globally. Our aim was to identify differences in healthy swallowing across five different barium stimuli. METHOD: Twenty healthy adults (10 women), aged 22-54 years, underwent videofluoroscopy including comfortable sips of thin liquid barium: two sips of 20% weight-to-volume (w/v) barium prepared with E-Z-HD powder, and two sips each of 20%w/v and 40%w/v barium prepared with Liquid Polibar Plus and E-Z-Paque powder. Recordings were analyzed according to the Analysis of Swallowing Physiology: Events, Kinematics and Timing Method. Measures of timing, kinematics and residue were obtained. Chi-square, Friedman's, and Wilcoxon signed-ranks test were used to identify differences across stimuli. RESULTS: Significant differences were seen across barium stimuli for upper esophageal sphincter (UES) opening duration, UES diameter, pharyngeal area at maximum constriction, and residue. In all cases, smaller values were seen with the 20%w/v E-Z-HD stimulus; however, this stimulus had questionable opacity for visualization. Patterns of residue severity were not explained by barium concentration. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that some measures of swallowing are influenced by barium product and/or concentration. Measures are not necessarily similar across different barium products at the same concentration. This study illustrates the importance of using standard and appropriate stimuli in videofluoroscopy, and for clinicians to report not only the product but also the concentration of stimuli used. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.20669712.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".