Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Following recently described small series of patients with the syndrome of cerebellar ataxia with bilateral vestibulopathy (CABV), the authors undertook a careful clinical and laboratory assessment of patients who presented to their unit with characteristics of this syndrome. STUDY DESIGN: Case note review. SETTING: Tertiary, university-based, multidisciplinary neurootology clinic. SUBJECTS: Thirty-three patients whose characteristics fit this syndrome. METHODS: Patients presenting to the Multidisciplinary Neurotology Clinic with characteristics of CABV were entered into a bespoke database. This was analyzed to identify the clinical findings and results of vestibular investigations for this group. RESULTS: Patients presented at a mean age of 54 years (SD, 17.6) with symptoms having been present for a median of 3 years (interquartile ratio, 2.0-9.5). Caloric testing greatly underestimated the disorder, being subnormal in only 18% of patients; the head-thrust test was abnormal and dynamic visual acuity testing was abnormal 88% and 91% of the time, respectively. Of the patients, 76% demonstrated gaze-evoked nystagmus. Impaired smooth pursuit (97% of patients showed low gain with saccadic corrections) and impaired cancellation of the vestibulo-ocular reflex (in 97% of patients) were found. Impaired saccular otolithic function was abnormal in 33%, adding to patient imbalance. CONCLUSION: The unique double-pathway balance impairment in CABV patients causes a high prevalence of subnormal function of both central and peripheral vestibular function. This is an easily missed clinical entity that is often associated with normal caloric investigations. As many patients with this syndrome are poor candidates for vestibular rehabilitation therapy, resources are better devoted to the early implementation of assistance with their safe ambulation and activities of daily living.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.090 | 0.025 |
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".