Evaluation of the Balance Error Scoring System (BESS) in the Diagnosis of Acute Mountain Sickness at 4380 m
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ascent to altitude is associated with a decrease in balance; however, the effect of acute mountain sickness (AMS) status on balance is variable depending on the test used and the altitude at which the test is performed. Here, we report preliminary findings on the relationship between the balance error scoring system (BESS) and AMS at the 2010 Janai Purnima festival at Gosainkunda, Nepal (4380 m). All subjects (n=37) completed a shortened BESS test (mBESS) while a subset completed the full BESS test (n=27). Pulse oximetry was used to measure heart rate and oxygen saturation, and blood pressure was measured by sphygmomanometer. Balance test scores (BESS and mBESS) and physiological measurements were compared between groups with AMS (AMS⁺) and without AMS (AMS⁻). Receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compare the abilities of the BESS and mBESS tests to correctly identify the AMS status of subjects. The AMS⁺ group had significantly higher Lake Louise scores than the AMS⁻ group (mean=4.0 (standard deviation=1.3) vs. 0.3 (0.6), p<0.001). The AMS⁺ group also scored significantly higher on both the mBESS (6.6 (3.5) vs. 2.7 (1.7) errors, p=0.018) and the BESS tests (19.2 (8.8) vs. 10.4 (6.0) errors, p=0.001) compared to the AMS⁻ group, indicating inferior balance in the AMS⁺ group. The area under the ROC curve was significantly greater for the BESS test (0.895) compared to the mBESS test (0.690, p=0.02), implying that the full BESS test more accurately identified a subject's AMS status. Additional studies are needed to determine if BESS could be a useful adjunct to the clinical diagnosis of AMS.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".