Visual Vestibular Mismatch in Patients Treated with Intratympanic Gentamicin for Meniere's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To support the hypothesis that the symptom complex known as visual vestibular mismatch (VVM) can be induced by peripheral vestibular disease. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review; prospective questionnaire. SETTING: A tertiary/quaternary care hospital clinic. METHODS: The charts of 28 patients who were treated for Meniere's disease were studied. Their responses to a pretreatment VVM questionnaire were scored and compared with their answers in a telephone follow-up to the same questions posttreatment. These questionnaires were compared with those filled in by 100 control patients without ear disease. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' responses to a VVM-specific questionnaire. RESULTS: Seventeen of 28 patients had VVM. Gentamicin therapy increased the number of positive answers. There was no correlation between the development of VVM complaints, caloric scores, and posturography performance. No control patients had symptoms of VVM. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the development of VVM indicates the onset or worsening of vestibular disease as it can be induced or exacerbated by gentamicin therapy. As there is no correlation between VVM and caloric scores, we suggest that otolithic damage may be responsible for this symptom set developing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".