DIZZINESS AMONG PATIENTS WITH WHIPLASH-ASSOCIATED DISORDER: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether vestibular rehabilitation for patients with whiplash-associated disorder and dizziness had any effect on balance measures and self-perceived handicap. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SUBJECTS: Twenty-nine patients, 20 women and 9 men, age range 22-76 years. METHODS: The patients were randomized to an intervention group or a control group. The intervention comprised vestibular rehabilitation. All patients were assessed at baseline, after 6 weeks and after 3 months with 4 different balance measures and the Dizziness Handicap Inventory. RESULTS: After 6 weeks, the intervention group showed statistically significant improvements compared with the control group in the following measures: standing on one leg eyes open (p=0.02), blindfolded tandem stance (p=0.045), Dizziness Handicap Inventory total score (p=0.047), Dizziness Handicap Inventory functional score (p=0.005) and in Dizziness Handicap Inventory physical score (p=0.033). After 3 months, the intervention group showed statistically significant improvements compared with the control group in the following measures: standing on one leg eyes open (p=0.000), tandem stance (p=0.033) and Dizziness Handicap Inventory physical score (p=0.04). CONCLUSION: Vestibular rehabilitation for patients with whiplash-associated disorder can decrease self-perceived handicap and increase postural control.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".