MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7125385566 · doi:10.23785/praxis.2025.12.002

[Swallowing disorder after stroke - diagnosis and therapy in primary care].

2025· article· de· W7125385566 on OpenAlexaff
Andreas Disko, Frauke Johannes, Anna-Maria Pekacka-Egli, Magdalena Bujan, Bartosz Bujan

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2025
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDysphagia Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsHatch (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDysphagiaPrimary careStroke (engine)RehabilitationPneumoniaAspiration pneumoniaQuality of life (healthcare)Acute stroke

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Dysphagia is a common consequence of stroke, affecting a significant proportion of patients especially during the acute phase. They carry a substantial risk of complications such as aspiration pneumonia, malnutrition, and dehydration, and can considerably impair both quality of life and rehabilitation outcomes. In general practice, where many stroke survivors receive follow-up care, early identification of dysphagia is essential to prevent serious consequences like pneumonia or nutritional deficits. This article provides an overview of the pathophysiology and clinical symptoms of post-stroke dysphagia (PSD). It outlines established screening tools and diagnostic approaches, as well as therapeutic options that can be applied in primary care settings. Special emphasis is placed on interprofessional collaboration and the role of general practitioners in coordinating therapy and long-term management. The article offers practical recommendations for the care of affected patients and supports primary care providers in delivering competent and comprehensive treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicDysphagia Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207