ArticleScientific reports2026
Artificial intelligence and image processing framework for automated airway invasion detection and residue classification from swallowing endoscopy.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) is a widely used instrumental method for dysphagia, but its interpretation depends on lighting and evaluator experience. This study developed and validated a framework artificial intelligence (AI) and image processing to detect penetration, aspiration, and classify residues according to the Yale Pharyngeal Residue Severity Rating Scale (YPR-SRS). The system combines anatomical tracking of the epiglottis, arytenoids, and vocal folds with contrast adjustments, color-based segmentation, and enhancement filters, optimizing the visibility of clinical events. In validation with 60 videos, accuracy was of 0.90 for penetration and 0.87 for aspiration, with sensitivities of 1.00 and 0.90, specificities of 0.80 and 0.85, and Kappa values of 0.80 and 0.75. For residues in the pyriform sinuses, accuracy ranged from 0.91 to 0.95, sensitivity from 0.91 to 1.00, specificity from 0.83 to 1.00, and Kappa = 0.87. In the valleculae, accuracy ranged from 0.95 to 1.00, with sensitivity and specificity of 0.91-1.00 and Kappa = 0.91. These findings highlight its assistive potential for FEES analysis and clinical decision-making support in penetration, aspiration, and pharyngeal residue classification, a capability not previously reported.
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.