ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Artificial intelligence for dysphagia screening: A machine learning approach.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early and reliable screening for oropharyngeal dysphagia symptoms in at-risk populations is a crucial first stage in effective management. This study aims to propose a machine learning model that can predict whether individuals are at risk of having confirmed dysphagia based on diagnostic accuracy. This was an exploratory cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study. Adults and older adults were screened and assessed, and a videofluoroscopy swallowing study was performed to confirm dysphagia in participants with complaints about swallowing and signs or symptoms identified in the clinical assessment by a speech therapist. Eight algorithms were tested based on a theoretical model to evaluate their diagnostic accuracy: Naive Bayes, K-Nearest Neighbors, Logistic Regression, Decision Tree, Random Forest, Support Vector Machine, Multilayer Perceptron, and Convolutional Neural Networks. The Pandas library in Python was used for data visualization and manipulation. In total, 465 participants were included, of whom 153 had dysphagia. A screening with 15 items related to personal, health, and oral health characteristics is proposed. The final four best-performing models were Naive Bayes (accuracy 0.76, sensitivity 0.84), Logistic Regression (accuracy 0.79, sensitivity 0.82), Support Vector Machine (accuracy 0.78, sensitivity 0.79), and Convolutional Neural Network (accuracy 0.78, sensitivity 0.74). The use of artificial intelligence based on different machine-learning approaches is promising for dysphagia screening, demonstrating adequate diagnostic accuracy. Future studies should be conducted to externally validate the proposed screening models.
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.