Computer-aided screening of aspiration risks in dysphagia with wearable technology : a systematic review and meta-analysis on test accuracy

Abstract

Aspiration caused by dysphagia is a prevalent problem that causes serious health consequences and even death. Traditional diagnostic instruments could induce pain, discomfort, nausea, and radiation exposure. The emergence of wearable technology with computer-aided screening might facilitate continuous or frequent assessments to prompt early and effective management. The objectives of this review are to summarize these systems to identify aspiration risks in dysphagic individuals and inquire about their accuracy. Two authors independently searched electronic databases, including CINAHL, Embase, IEEE Xplore® Digital Library, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (PROSPERO reference number: CRD42023408960). The risk of bias and applicability were assessed using QUADAS-2. Nine (n = 9) articles applied accelerometers and/or acoustic devices to identify aspiration risks in patients with neurodegenerative problems (e.g., dementia, Alzheimer’s disease), neurogenic problems (e.g., stroke, brain injury), in addition to some children with congenital abnormalities, using videofluoroscopic swallowing study (VFSS) or fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) as the reference standard. All studies employed a traditional machine learning approach with a feature extraction process. Support vector machine (SVM) was the most famous machine learning model used. A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the classification accuracy and identify risky swallows. Nevertheless, we decided not to conclude the meta-analysis findings (pooled diagnostic odds ratio: 21.5, 95% CI, 2.7–173.6) because studies had unique methodological characteristics and major differences in the set of parameters/thresholds, in addition to the substantial heterogeneity and variations, with sensitivity levels ranging from 21.7% to 90.0% between studies. Small sample sizes could be a critical problem in existing studies (median = 34.5, range 18–449), especially for machine learning models. Only two out of the nine studies had an optimized model with sensitivity over 90%. There is a need to enlarge the sample size for better generalizability and optimize signal processing, segmentation, feature extraction, classifiers, and their combinations to improve the assessment performance.