Cited by 41Dysphagia Assessment and ManagementVoice and Speech DisordersArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

A preliminary investigation of whether HRCA signals can differentiate between swallows from healthy people and swallows from people with neurodegenerative diseases

Open access
Donohue, Cara, Khalifa, Yassin, Perera, Subashan, Sejdić, Ervin, Coyle, James L.·2021·Dysphagia

Abstract

High-resolution cervical auscultation (HRCA) is an emerging method for non-invasively assessing swallowing by using acoustic signals from a contact microphone, vibratory signals from an accelerometer, and advanced signal processing and machine learning techniques. HRCA has differentiated between safe and unsafe swallows, predicted components of the Modified Barium Swallow Impairment Profile, and predicted kinematic events of swallowing such as hyoid bone displacement, laryngeal vestibular closure, and upper esophageal sphincter opening with a high degree of accuracy. However, HRCA has not been used to characterize swallow function in specific patient populations. This study investigated the ability of HRCA to differentiate between swallows from healthy people and people with neurodegenerative diseases. We hypothesized that HRCA would differentiate between swallows from healthy people and people with neurodegenerative diseases with a high degree of accuracy. We analyzed 170 swallows from 20 patients with neurodegenerative diseases and 170 swallows from 51 healthy age-matched adults who underwent concurrent video fluoroscopy with non-invasive neck sensors. We used a linear mixed model and several supervised machine learning classifiers that use HRCA signal features and a leave-one-out procedure to differentiate between swallows. Twenty-two HRCA signal features were statistically significant (p < 0.05) for predicting whether swallows were from healthy people or from patients with neurodegenerative diseases. Using the HRCA signal features alone, logistic regression and decision trees classified swallows between the two groups with 99% accuracy, 100% sensitivity, and 99% specificity. This provides preliminary research evidence that HRCA can differentiate swallow function between healthy and patient populations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00455-020-10177-0

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Videofluoroscopy swallowing study (VFSS) was used as the reference examination in most included studies.

    “Videofluoroscopy of swallowing was used as the reference examination in most studies.”

    From Artificial intelligence in the diagnosis and management of dysphagia: a scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Introduction calls videofluoroscopy one of the gold standards for assessing swallowing physiology, and Methods > Equipment and Procedures reports that both groups in this study underwent VFSS. This is a single study; it does not assess whether VFSS was the reference examination in most studies. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Studies on AI in dysphagia primarily rely on imaging resources such as VFSS for comparative analysis due to its high reliability.

    “Studies on AI in dysphagia primarily rely on imaging resources such as VFSS for comparative analysis due to its high reliability(16,23-28).”

    From Artificial intelligence in the diagnosis and management of dysphagia: a scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) calls videofluoroscopy one of the gold standards for assessing swallowing physiology. The Methods: Data Analysis section (page unavailable) uses VFSS image labels as ground truth for evaluating this study’s machine-learning classifiers. The paper does not establish that AI studies in dysphagia primarily rely on VFSS, or that high reliability is their reason for doing so. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Donohue, C., Khalifa, Y., Perera, S., Sejdić, E., & Coyle, J. L.
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Donohue, Cara
Venue
Dysphagia
Published
2020-09-05
Volume
36
Issue
4
Pages
635-643
ISSN
  • 0179-051X (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0460
OpenAlex
W3083374281
Cited by
41
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1
FWCI
6.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Dysphagia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD092239, R01HD074819)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Dysphagia Assessment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
swallowing, neurodegenerative diseases, swallowing assessment, machine learning classification, videofluoroscopy
MeSH terms
Adult, Auscultation, Deglutition, Deglutition Disorders, Humans, Neurodegenerative Diseases, Esophageal Sphincter, Upper

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review