MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W77552130

Effects of powdered versus liquid barium on the viscosity of fluids used in modified swallow studies.

2003· article· en· W77552130 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey Baron, Tim Alexander

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDysphagia Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBariumViscosityLaminar flowChromatographyMaterials scienceMedicineChemistryThermodynamicsComposite materialMetallurgy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the viscosity of thickened juice mixtures used in modified barium swallow studies significantly changes with the addition of powdered barium. We also describe a test formulation created using liquid barium, which has a negligible effect on juice viscosity. METHODS: The viscosities of water and standardized honey- and nectar-consistency juices mixed with different amounts of powdered barium were measured by timing the laminar flow of a given initial hydrostatic head of fluid under gravity though an orifice of fixed diameter. Standardized juices were then mixed with a liquid formulation of barium and with measured quantities of water to produce viscosities that more closely equated with those of the standardized juices. RESULTS: With the addition of powdered barium, viscosity increased in all fluids, most markedly with the nectar-consistency juice. Liquid barium formulations maintained the viscosities of the original thickened juices. CONCLUSION: Rendering juices radio-opaque with barium powder results in dramatic increases in the viscosity of the resulting mixture and compromises diagnostic accuracy. Liquid barium preparations have the advantage that they can be rapidly and accurately dispensed by syringe, and their use does not significantly increase the viscosity of the preparation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicDysphagia Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207