The effect of liquid consistency on penetration-aspiration: a Bayesian analysis of two large datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Thickened liquids are commonly recommended to reduce the risk of penetration-aspiration. However, questions persist regarding the impact of bolus consistency on swallowing safety. The common practice of summarizing Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS) scores based on worst scores is a bias in prior analyses. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of liquid consistency on PAS scores using a Bayesian multilevel ordinal regression model approach, considering all scores across repeated bolus trials. A second aim was to determine whether PAS scores differed across thickener type within consistency. Methods: We analyzed two prior datasets (D1; D2). D1 involved 678 adults with suspected dysphagia (289 female; mean age 69 years, range 20-100). D2 involved 177 adults (94 female; mean age 54 years, range 21-85), of whom 106 were nominally healthy and 71 had suspected dysphagia. All participants underwent videofluoroscopy involving ≥3 boluses of 20% w/v thin liquid barium and of xanthan-gum thickened barium in mildly, moderately and extremely thick consistencies. D2 participants also swallowed trials of slightly thick liquid barium, and starch-thickened stimuli for each thickened consistency. Duplicate blinded rating yielded PAS scores per bolus, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. PAS ratings for a total of 8,185 and 3,407 boluses were available from D1 and D2, respectively. Bayesian models examined PAS patterns across consistencies. We defined meaningful differences as non-overlapping 95% credible intervals (CIs). Results: Across D1 and D2, penetration occurred on 10.87% of trials compared to sensate (0.68%) and silent aspiration (1.54%), with higher rates of penetration (13.47%) and aspiration (3.07%) on thin liquids. For D1, the probability of a PAS score > 2 was higher for thin liquids with weighted PAS scores of 1.57 (CI: 1.48, 1.66) versus mildly (1.26; CI: 1.2, 1.33), moderately (1.1; CI: 1.07, 1.13), and extremely thick liquids (1.04; CI: 1.02, 1.08). D2 results were similar. Weighted PAS scores did not meaningfully differ between thin and slightly thick liquids, or between starch and xanthan gum thickened liquids. Discussion: These results confirm that the probability of penetration-aspiration is greatest on thin liquids compared to thick liquids, with significant reductions in PAS severity emerging with mildly thick liquids.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".