The FEES Dysphagia Index: a bias-resilient continuous score that captures expert clinical judgment in 2,943 neurological inpatients

Multi-consistency testing during flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) is clinically necessary but introduces selection bias: worst scores inflate severity because the number of consistencies tested covaries with disease severity. In this retrospective observational study of hospitalized neurological patients, we derived and validated the FEES Dysphagia Index (FDI) in two temporally independent cohorts (Cohort 1: 2013-2018, N=1,257; Cohort 2: 2021-2025, N=1,686) from a single center. FDI-S averages Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS) scores across tested consistencies (0-100 scale); FDI-E uses Yale Pharyngeal Residue scores; FDI-C combines both. Selection bias was quantified using sequential branching-tree inverse probability weighting (IPW). Worst PAS overestimated severity by 24%; FDI deviated by <2%. FDI-C was significantly superior to Worst PAS for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP; AUC 0.70 vs. 0.60, p<0.001), mortality (0.71 vs. 0.62, p=0.040), and restricted oral intake (0.90 vs. 0.74, p<0.001), and statistically equivalent to clinician-rated severity. FDI-C mapped linearly onto ordinal Functional Oral Intake Scale values (FOIS; proportional odds RCS p=0.99). With functional status and diagnosis, FDI-C reconstructed the clinicians oral intake recommendation with AUC up to 0.93. The FDI-C-mortality relationship was sigmoidal with a clinically relevant transition zone between [~]50 and [~]85. FDI-C is a bias-resilient, bedside-calculable score with interval-scale properties that captures expert clinical judgment, suitable as both a clinical decision support tool and a continuous research endpoint.