Clinical Romberg Testing Does Not Detect Vestibular Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of tandem Romberg and tandem walking testing at detecting vestibular disease and to increase the difficulty of these standard screening assessments in an attempt to try and make them more effective in the clinical office setting. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A prospective study in a tertiary and quaternary care neuro-otology clinic comparing performance on tandem Romberg and tandem walking between patients with vestibular disease and controls matched for age and sex. RESULTS: Making the tandem Romberg test and tandem walking tests more difficult for patients was not helpful because it also made the tests more difficult to perform for controls with no symptoms of vestibular disease. When comparing a young and an old cohort, there was a significant difference in performance. CONCLUSION: Our techniques of sharpening and sensitizing tandem Romberg and tandem walking tests were not useful at delineating vestibular disease, and age itself may be a confound that mimics the effects of balance system disease. SIGNIFICANCE: The tandem Romberg and tandem walking tests, despite being in widespread clinical use as office screening tests, may not be effective at determining the presence of newly developed vestibular disease.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".