Therapy Manuals for Clinically Implementing Proactive and Reactive Swallowing Therapies During Head and Neck Radiotherapy: Using the TIDieR Framework to Disseminate PRO-ACTIVE Trial Interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this report is to describe swallowing therapy delivered before or during head and neck radiotherapy (RT) to promote swallowing preservation. Three models of therapy that were tested in the Comparing the Effectiveness of PROphylACTic swallow InterVEntion for patients receiving Radiation Therapy for Head and Neck Cancer (PRO-ACTIVE) randomized clinical trial (NCT03455608) are described according to the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) framework. PRO-ACTIVE compared the relative effectiveness of different timing and intensity of delivering EAT and EXERCISE swallowing therapies during head and neck RT. Therapy manuals used by speech-language pathologists participating in the trial are disseminated in this report as a resource for the clinical implementation of trial results. The therapy models represent different timing (proactive vs. reactive) and intensity (± swallowing exercise) of implementing swallowing therapies to promote maximal pharyngeal activity during head and neck RT. Swallowing therapies integrated standardized assessment and monitoring techniques, the Eat All Through Radiotherapy and/or swallowing exercises.
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 | 0.369 | 0.370 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.006 |
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".