ArticleScientific reports2026
Validation of automated 5 mL thin liquid swallowing sound segmentation for estimating audio-derived pharyngeal clearance time.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Multimodal In-Ear Audio and Physiological Dataset for Swallowing and Non-Verbal Event Classification.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluates the reliability of using automatically segmented audio events to detect pharyngeal swallowing activity by comparing their onset and offset timings with physiological event markers derived from videofluoroscopic swallowing studies (VFSS). Swallowing sounds were recorded from 45 patients with suspected dysphagia during VFSS using a neck-worn electronic stethoscope (NWES). A segmentation algorithm was used to detect the audio onset and offset of swallowing. These were compared to VFSS-annotated events: bolus contact with the epiglottis (P-Start), upper esophageal sphincter (UES) opening (E-Start), and UES closure (E-End). Timing offsets and duration measures were analysed, and subgroup comparisons were performed based on the presence or absence of oral containment. The algorithm detected 80 of 84 swallows. Audio onset occurred after P-Start in 96% of cases and after E-Start in 67.5%. Audio offset occurred after E-End in 82.5% of swallows. The mean audio-derived pharyngeal clearance time (PCT) was 706.5 ± 294.8 ms, closely aligned with the VFSS-based pharyngeal duration of 790.0 ± 310.0 ms. PCT did not differ significantly between swallows with and without oral containment, suggesting robustness against pre-pharyngeal activities. The findings confirm that audio-based segmentation reliably captures the pharyngeal phase and estimates durations that align with VFSS-derived physiological events, supporting its use in non-invasive, bedside screening for swallowing efficiency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.