Tongue Pressure Resistance Training for Post-Stroke Dysphagia: A Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Swallowing outcomes regarding lingual resistance training have been mixed due to variability in methods, leading to ambiguity concerning the utility of this intervention. The purpose of this study was to explore the effect of a lingual resistance training protocol on the swallowing function of an individual presenting with dysphagia and reduced tongue pressure following a supratentorial ischemic stroke. METHODS: A study involving a lingual resistance training protocol with videofluoroscopy to measure outcomes comparing different parameters to ASPEKT normative reference values at three timepoints: baseline (videofluoroscopic swallowing study [VFSS] A), following a 4-week lead-in period to control for spontaneous recovery (VFSS B), and at the 8-week endpoint of treatment (VFSS C). The study was interrupted due to the COVID-19 pandemic after 1 participant enrollment and is presented as a single case study. RESULTS: Isometric tongue pressures: Following the 4-week lead-in, a decline in maximum isometric anterior tongue pressure (MAIP) and regular effort saliva swallow pressures (RESS) was noted; however, there was no change in maximum posterior isometric tongue pressures (MPIP). Isometric tongue pressures improved post-treatment, with increases in MAIP, MPIP, and to a lesser degree RESS. Swallowing function: Impairments in swallowing safety continued between the baseline VFSS A (Penetration-Aspiration Scale score [PAS] = 8) and lead-in VFSS B (PAS = 5). Swallowing safety improved following the intervention, with PAS scores = 1 at the endpoint VFSS C. Pixel-based measures of swallowing efficiency revealed a reduced frequency of post-swallow total pharyngeal residue following the treatment. Improvements were found in two other swallowing parameters, laryngeal vestibule closure integrity and pharyngeal area at maximum pharyngeal constriction, at the endpoint VFSS. CONCLUSION: These pilot data suggest improvements in some swallowing parameters as an outcome of intervention.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".