Bolus Texture Testing as a Clinical Method for Evaluating Food Oral Processing and Choking Risk: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Choking on food is a leading cause of accidental death in several populations, including children, people with intellectual/developmental disability, and older adults in residential care facilities. One contributor to choking risk is incomplete oral processing and failure to convert food to a cohesive, nonsticky bolus with a maximum particle size that will not block the airway. Clinical tests of mastication do not evaluate properties of chewed food boluses. We characterized expectorated boluses, after oral processing, using methods developed by the International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative (IDDSI). METHOD: Seventeen adults without dysphagia (seven women and 10 men), aged 23-55 years, chewed samples of a cracker, a raw baby carrot, and a circular, dome-shaped gummy candy. Chewing metrics were obtained up to the point when the person indicated that they were ready to swallow. The bolus was then either expectorated or swallowed; IDDSI tests were used to characterize the expectorated boluses. RESULTS: Measures of chewing did not differ between spit and swallow conditions. Expectorated cracker and carrot boluses had maximum particle size consistent with IDDSI Level SB6 Soft & Bite-Sized foods or lower. The gummy candy samples remained at IDDSI Level RG7 Regular food consistency. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that expectorated ready-to-swallow boluses are representative of boluses that are swallowed and that oral processing in adults without dysphagia typically results in boluses at IDDSI's Level SB6 or lower. IDDSI's testing methods provide a practical method for evaluating oral processing by characterizing expectorated ready-to-swallow boluses and may guide food texture recommendations for persons who have increased risk of choking.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".