Difference in Drinking Times as a Function of Liquid Consistency in Adults With Oculopharyngeal Muscular Dystrophy: A Comparative Study Using Bostwick Consistometer and <scp>IDDSI</scp> Flow Test Methods
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective was to document the differences between drinking times and oral perception between liquids in individuals with dysphagia. A second objective was to assess variations in consistency categorization across instruments. A third objective was to explore the relationship between drinking time and dysphagia severity. A sample of individuals with OPMD (n = 30; 40-75 years) was recruited. Participants drank 80 mL of water, followed by three blinded commercially pre-thickened cranberry cocktails (CranA, CranB, CranC). Flow rates were measured with Bostwick consistometer, IDDSI Flow Test, and Discovery HR 20 rheometer. Patient-reported outcome measures were used to assess dysphagia. Mean drinking times for participants with OPMD were as follows: 7.9 ± 4.4 s for water, 10.7 ± 4.8 s for CranA, 12.3 ± 5.7 s for CranB, and 15.2 ± 7.2 s for CranC. All four times were statistically different from each other. Participants reported noticeable differences in oral perception. The Bostwick flow rates were different for all three cocktails. Based on IDDSI Flow Test, CranA was categorized as IDDSI level-2, while both CranB and CranC were categorized as IDDSI level-3. Correlations ranging from 0.39 to 0.55 were found between drinking times and dysphagia severity. In conclusion, liquids within the same IDDSI category can have different Bostwick flow rates and oral perception. The hypothesis that participants with OPMD may find certain liquids more challenging to swallow, despite being in the same IDDSI category, deserves further exploration in future studies.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it