A contemporary review of balance dysfunction following vestibular schwannoma surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: This review aims to evaluate the literature pertaining to subjective balance dysfunction following vestibular schwannoma surgery; the effect of postoperative imbalance on disability, handicap and quality of life; and to determine factors that influence vestibular compensation. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane databases, and relevant contemporary texts were searched for papers relating to subjective balance dysfunction following vestibular schwannoma surgery. The quality of this clinical evidence was evaluated. RESULTS: The search yielded 26 studies assessing subjective balance dysfunction following vestibular schwannoma surgery. Analysis revealed that the majority of patients complain of balance dysfunction following surgery; however, a small number report disability or handicap. A few studies have demonstrated a decreased quality of life due to balance dysfunction. Factors have been identified that may contribute to a poor recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Further study is needed of the factors that influence vestibular compensation following vestibular schwannoma surgery. This will help to counsel patients prior to surgery and develop strategies for rehabilitation.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".