Effects of a sensorimotor short-term rehabilitation programme on dysphagia after cerebral infraction. a comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims: The aim of the study was to compare the effects of a short rehabilitation training programme on dysphagia after stroke between a sensorimotor therapeutic tool and traditional dysphagia therapy (TDT). The therapeutic protocol consisted of alternating exercises aiming to muscle strengthening (Chin Tuck Against Resistance, CTAR) and sensory stimulation of swallowing (Thermal Tactile Stimulation, TTS). Method(s): In this prospective study 30 eligible stroke patients with dysphagia were included. Two (2) groups were matched in terms of demographic characteristics (p>0,05). The experimental group (N=15, 10 men, 11 with subcortical lesions, mean (+/‐SD) age 63,9+/‐5.6, days post‐stroke 10+/‐3.7) received the intense therapeutic protocol while the control group (N=15) received TDT. Fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) was conducted at baseline and 2 weeks post, measuring standing pharyngeal secretions, spillage, penetration‐aspiration, pharyngeal swallow onset time and residue. Dysphagia severity (Dysphagia Severity Rating Scale) and Functional Oral intake scale (FOIS) were also scored. Parametric statistical test Anova was used to compare the variables between the 2 groups (SPSS‐v. 23). Result(s): Significant changes were observed in the experimental group: vallecula residue (measured with Yale residue scale) (p=0.002), penetration/ aspiration scores (p
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".