The Effects of Whole-Body Exercise on Swallowing Function in Older Adults With Parkinson's Disease: A Proof-of-Principle Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Rodent models suggest that when respiratory demands increase during an exercise program, tongue and thyroarytenoid muscles engage to maintain a patent airway, leading to increased muscle strength. This suggests that nonspecific exercises that increase respiratory rate may improve swallowing. As such, the purpose of this proof-of-principle study was to determine the potential for whole-body exercise to improve tongue strength, cough strength, and self-reported swallowing function in older adults with Parkinson's disease (PD). METHOD: age = 73 ± 7 years) were enrolled in a 10-week (30 min/session, three sessions/week, for a total of 30 sessions) virtual, whole-body exercise program, designed to increase respiratory rate. Demographic, frailty (Strength, Assistance in walking, Rise from a chair, Climb stairs, and Falls [SARC-F]), mobility (Schwab & England Activities of Daily Living Scale), and swallowing (tongue strength, cough strength, Eating Assessment Tool 10 [EAT-10]) measures were collected. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and linear mixed models. RESULTS: Baseline frailty and mobility severity scores indicated mild PD severity. Post-exercise, four of nine participants demonstrated improvement in either anterior or posterior tongue strength, as well as cough strength. Three participants with higher exercise heart rate or rating of perceived exertion scores reported a decrease in EAT-10 scores to a level of below clinical concern (< 3). Results from linear mixed models demonstrated no statistically significant effects on any measures of swallowing function. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this pilot study suggest potential signal for a higher intensity whole-body exercise program to improve self-reported swallowing function, given that heart rate and/or exertion intensity that met or exceeded the target was associated with positive changes in self-reported swallowing function, but not tongue or cough strength. Future research including a larger sample size and intervention controls is needed to further elucidate a relationship between whole-body exercise and swallowing.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".