Profiling Number of Swallows per Bolus and Residue in Individuals With Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Swallowing efficiency impairments are the most prevalent and earliest manifestation of dysphagia in people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (pALS). We aimed to profile number of swallows elicited in pALS across thin liquid, moderately thick liquid, extremely thick liquid, and crackers compared to expected healthy reference data and to determine relationships between degree of pharyngeal residue, number of elicited swallows, and swallowing safety. Method: pALS underwent standardized videofluoroscopic swallowing studies of 10 bolus trials. Trained raters performed duplicate, independent, and blinded ratings to derive Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity (DIGEST) efficiency and safety grades and Analysis of Swallowing Physiology: Events, Kinematics, and Timing (ASPEKT) percent total pharyngeal residue. Number of swallows per bolus was quantified (1 = typical, 2 = atypically high, 3 = extremely high). Kruskal–Wallis, Pearson chi-square, and odds ratio analyses were performed at bolus and participant levels. Key Results: At the bolus level ( N = 2,523), number of swallows per bolus was observed to be, in rank order, as follows: atypically high (49.1%), extremely high (28.5%), and typical (22.4%). Mean number of swallows significantly differed by International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative level ( p < .0001), with a higher number of swallows elicited in pALS for moderately thick versus thin liquids, extremely thick liquids, and crackers, p < .0001. Number of swallows per bolus increased with increasing DIGEST efficiency grades ( p < .0001). Positive correlations were observed between ASPEKT percent residue and number of swallows for thin ( r = .24) and moderately thick ( r = .16) liquids, p < .05. DIGEST efficiency and safety grades were not significantly associated ( p > .05). Conclusion and Inferences: pALS demonstrated a higher number of swallows per bolus compared to healthy reference data that may represent a compensation for reductions in swallowing efficiency to clear pharyngeal residue.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".