Establishing reference values for temporal kinematic swallow events across the lifespan in healthy community dwelling adults using high-resolution cervical auscultation
Open accessAbstract
Few research studies have investigated temporal kinematic swallow events in healthy adults to establish normative reference values. Determining cutoffs for normal and disordered swallowing is vital for differentially diagnosing presbyphagia, variants of normal swallowing, and dysphagia; and for ensuring that different swallowing research laboratories produce consistent results in common measurements from different samples within the same population. High-resolution cervical auscultation (HRCA), a sensor-based dysphagia screening method, has accurately annotated temporal kinematic swallow events in patients with dysphagia, but hasn't been used to annotate temporal kinematic swallow events in healthy adults to establish dysphagia screening cutoffs. This study aimed to determine: (1) Reference values for temporal kinematic swallow events, (2) Whether HRCA can annotate temporal kinematic swallow events in healthy adults. We hypothesized (1) Our reference values would align with a prior study; (2) HRCA would detect temporal kinematic swallow events as accurately as human judges. Trained judges completed temporal kinematic measurements on 659 swallows (N = 70 adults). Swallow reaction time and LVC duration weren't different (p > 0.05) from a previously published historical cohort (114 swallows, N = 38 adults), while other temporal kinematic measurements were different (p < 0.05), suggesting a need for further standardization to feasibly pool data analyses across laboratories. HRCA signal features were used as input to machine learning algorithms and annotated UES opening (69.96% accuracy), UES closure (64.52% accuracy), LVC (52.56% accuracy), and LV re-opening (69.97% accuracy); providing preliminary evidence that HRCA can noninvasively and accurately annotate temporal kinematic measurements in healthy adults to determine dysphagia screening cutoffs.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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 [25]
The Introduction (page unavailable) calls VFSS a gold-standard examination, and the Methods (page unavailable) report using it alongside HRCA in this study. The paper does not establish that VFSS was the reference examination in most of the citing document’s included studies. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredStudies 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 [25]
The Introduction (page unavailable) says this paper’s HRCA machine-learning studies collect VFSS images alongside sensor signals and compare results with VFSS-based expert judgments as the “ground truth.” That supports VFSS as a comparator in this line of research, but the paper does not establish that AI studies in dysphagia generally rely primarily on imaging, or explicitly attribute that practice to VFSS’s high reliability. (LLM, conf=0.85)
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.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 35 · Cited by 12
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [33]Dudik JM, Jestrović I, Luan B, Coyle JL, Sejdić E, A comparative analysis of swallowing accelerometry and sounds during saliva swallows., Biomed Eng Online. 14 (2015) 3. doi: 10.1186/1475-925X-14-3. 25578623 PMC4361156 · DOI · Paper page
- Authors
- Donohue, C., Khalifa, Y., Mao, S., Perera, S., Sejdić, E., & Coyle, J. L.
- Affiliations
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- Corresponding author
- Coyle, James L.
- Venue
- Dysphagia
- Published
- 2021-05-20
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 664-675
- ISSN
- 0179-051X (ISSN-L)
- 1432-0460
- PMC
- PMC10312069
- OpenAlex
- W3161202628
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 2.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- 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 › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastroesophageal reflux and treatments
- Keywords
- reference values, dysphagia screening, presbyphagia, upper esophageal sphincter, machine learning annotation, healthy adults, lifespan
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Auscultation, Biomechanical Phenomena, Deglutition, Deglutition Disorders, Humans, Longevity, Reference Values, Independent Living
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
