Videofluoroscopic Swallowing Studies: A Proposed Checklist
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The videofluoroscopic swallowing study (VFSS) is used widely in dysphagia research. However, variations exist in the conduct and interpretation of VFSS, including differences in contrast agents, food and fluid consistencies tested, patient positioning, intervention strategies trialed, fluoroscopy settings, resolution, and image storage solutions. It cannot be assumed that VFSS exams yield directly comparable results across different studies. It is essential that relevant elements of VFSS be clearly reported in research. The goal of this article is to outline optimal VFSS reporting as part of the Framework for RigOr aNd Transparency In REseaRch on Swallowing (FRONTIERS), a critical appraisal tool intended to promote rigor and transparency in dysphagia research. METHOD: We developed a set of 27 questions regarding the rigor and transparency of VFSS reporting, based on review of previous research articles. These were reviewed by all members of the FRONTIERS Framework collaborative, to determine which questions were mandatory, unnecessary, or needed revision, prior to inclusion in the final critical appraisal tool. RESULTS: The final FRONTIERS Framework tool contains 20 questions and seven subquestions regarding VFSS. These are grouped into four themes: patient/participant positioning, equipment and recording settings, contrast agents, and rating methods, including operational definitions and reliability. CONCLUSIONS: The VFSS section of the FRONTIERS Framework tool is intended to facilitate and promote rigorous and transparent reporting of all elements that may influence the interpretation of VFSS in research. This critical appraisal tool can also be used to guide research design and the evaluation of study outcomes contributing to best practices in the field of dysphagia research.
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 | 0.329 | 0.495 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.032 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".