Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy of the particle repositioning manoeuvre (PRM) in the treatment of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV). DESIGN: A randomized prospective study of patients with BPPV. METHODS: Seventy-one patients were randomized to one of three groups at their first clinic visit. These groups included the PRM, a sham PRM, and a control group. Patients were followed up in clinic at 2 weeks and 3 months. The mean long-term follow-up was 12 months. A telephone questionnaire was also conducted. RESULTS: At 2-week follow-up, 81.8% of patients in the PRM group had a resolution of symptoms and a negative Dix-Hallpike test compared with 15.3% in the sham PRM group and 60% in the control group. This difference was statistically significant between the treatment (PRM) and sham PRM groups and between the sham and control groups. It nearly reached significance between the treatment and control groups (p = .06). The sham treatment group had by far the worst outcome at the 2-week interval. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups after 2 weeks. CONCLUSION: The PRM is side specific. It may help induce remission of the vertiginous symptoms of BPPV in the short term. This cannot be attributable to a placebo effect. The PRM does not seem to affect the natural history of the disorder in the long term. The sham treatment causes a delay in spontaneous recovery, possibly by preventing the particles from falling into the utricle. This study has not compared the frequency or severity of symptoms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".