Preliminary Exploration of Variations in Measures of Pharyngeal Area During Nonswallowing Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Age- and disease-related changes in oropharyngeal anatomy and physiology may be identified through quantitative videofluoroscopic measures of pharyngeal area and dynamics. Pixel-based measures of nonconstricted pharyngeal area (PhAR) are typically taken during oral bolus hold tasks or on postswallow rest frames. A recent study in 87 healthy adults reported mean postswallow PhAR of 62%(C2–4) 2 , (range: 25%–135%), and significantly larger PhAR in males. The fact that measures were taken after initial bolus swallows without controlling for the presence of subsequent clearing swallows was identified as a potential source of variation. A subset of study participants had completed a protocol including additional static nonswallowing tasks, enabling us to explore variability across those tasks, taking sex differences into account. Method: Videofluoroscopy still shots were analyzed for 20 healthy adults (10 males, 10 females, M age = 26 years) in head-neutral position, chin-down and chin-up positions, a sustained /a/ vowel vocalization, and oral bolus hold tasks (1-cc, 5-cc). Trained raters used ImageJ software to measure PhAR in %(C2–4) 2 units. Measures were compared to previously reported mean postswallow PhAR for the same participants: (a) explorations of sex differences; (b) pairwise linear mixed-model analyses of variance (ANOVAs) of PhAR for each nonswallowing task versus postswallow measures, controlling for sex; and (c) a combined mixed-model ANOVA to confirm comparability of the subset of tasks showing no significant differences from postswallow measures in Step 2. Results: Overall, PhAR measures were significantly larger in male participants; however, most pairwise task comparisons did not differ by sex. No significant differences from postswallow measures were seen for 5-cc bolus hold, chin-down and chin-up postures, and the second (but not the first) of two repeated head neutral still shots. PhAR during a 5-cc bolus hold was most similar to postswallow measures: mean ± standard deviation of 51 ± 13%(C2–4) 2 in females and 64 ± 16%(C2–4) 2 in males. Conclusions: PhAR is larger in men than in women. Oral bolus hold tasks with a 5-cc liquid bolus yield similar measures to those obtained from postswallow rest frames.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".