MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064025630 · doi:10.2310/7070.2004.02080

2-Year Review of a Novel Vestibular Rehabilitation Program in Montreal and Laval, Quebec

2004· review· en· W2064025630 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Elizabeth Dannenbaum, Jamie M. Rappaport, Nicole Paquet, Martha Visintin, Joyce Fung, D. G. D. Watt

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Otolaryngology · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVestibular and auditory disorders
Canadian institutionsJewish Rehabilitation Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePosturographyRehabilitationVertigoVestibular systemPhysical therapyBalance (ability)Balance problemsNystagmusPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAudiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefits of a vestibular rehabilitation program (VRP) in the Montreal-Laval area. DESIGN: The VRP was conceptualized by a panel of experts including otolaryngologists, physiotherapists, and researchers from McGill University and its teaching hospitals. From February 1999 to December 2001, 117 patients were seen, and 88 of them completed the VRP. SETTING: The VRP has been established at the Jewish Rehabilitation Hospital in Laval, PQ, to provide specialized rehabilitation to clients suffering from vertigo, dizziness, and/or impaired balance owing to lesions or disorders of the vestibular system. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Presence or absence of nystagmus or vertigo during the Dix-Hallpike test, Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI), and Dynamic Gait Index (DGI). RESULTS: Thirty-five patients with benign paroxysmal positional vertigo of the posterior canal were treated with canalith repositioning manoeuvres. All of the patients (100%) had absence of nystagmus or vertigo after one to four treatment sessions. Forty-six patients with vestibular deficits or dizziness-disequilibrium completed the VRP, which consisted mainly of individualized eye-head and balance home exercise programs. At the end of the VRP, there was a significant decrease in DHI score (31 vs 57; p < .01) and a significant increase in DGI score (18.4 vs 22.6; p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: A range of modest to major improvements was shown by comparing initial and discharge scores of patients who had completed vestibular rehabilitation. The VRP appears to be beneficial for patients with a variety of vestibular disorders. Further research is needed to continue optimizing vestibular 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of OtolaryngologySame topicVestibular and auditory disordersFrench-language works237,207