Normal Values for Cervical Vestibular-Evoked Myogenic Potentials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the variability of normal values for cervical vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials (cVEMP) testing and to provide guidance regarding which parameters should be reported for clinical practice. STUDY DESIGN: Forty-eight normal subjects with no history of hearing loss or vestibular symptoms underwent cVEMP testing. Measurement parameters were tabulated and compared to other sets of cVEMP normal values in the literature. The literature was reviewed to assess the clinical significance of abnormal cVEMP results. The distributions of threshold and symmetry ratios for normal subjects were compared to the distributions of 90 patients who underwent cVEMP testing. SETTING: Tertiary academic center. RESULTS: Upper limits of 42% symmetry ratio and the range of 65 to 95 dB HL for threshold were established for our center.The quartile coefficients of dispersion were much less than 1.0 for all cVEMP parameters in the literature, suggesting that the variability in normal ranges across the literature is small. The distributions for threshold and symmetry ratio were similar between normal and patient groups. There is a lack of information in the literature regarding the impairment of function resulting from various degrees of abnormality of VEMP results. CONCLUSIONS: Normal values for cVEMP parameters are statistically consistent in the literature. The clinical significance of abnormal values has not been validated. For clinical purposes, cVEMP "thresholds" should be reported. Reporting of other parameters is optional.
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 | 0.003 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".