Visual vertigo analogue scale: An assessment questionnaire for visual vertigo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A common symptom for people with vestibulopathy is dizziness induced by dynamic visual input, known as visual vertigo (VV). The goal of this study is to present a novel method to assess VV, using a nine-item analog scale. The subjects rated the intensity of their dizziness on each item of the Visual Vertigo Analogue Scale (VVAS), which represented a daily situation typically inducing VV. The questionnaire was completed by participants with vestibulopathy (n=102) and by subjects receiving out-patient orthopaedic physiotherapy (n=102). The dizziness handicap inventory (DHI) was also completed by the vestibulopathic group. The Cronbach's Alpha index indicated the VVAS is internally consistent and reliable (Cronbach's Alpha=0.94). The study also found that the VVAS severity scores from vestibular and a non-vestibular population were significantly different (Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test p < 0.0001). Spearman correlation analysis conducted between DHI and VVAS scores for the clients with vestibulopathy showed positive moderate correlations between the VVAS score and the total DHI score (r=0.67, p< 0.0001). This study showed that the VVAS scale may be useful in providing a quantitative evaluation scale of visual vertigo.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".