Eye Exercises for Treatment of Idiopathic Cranial Nerve VII Paresis: Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To determine if fine-motor eye exercises can be used for treatment of unilateral, idiopathic cranial nerve VII paresis to improve rate of recovery. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized controlled trial, eligible patients were randomized to perform fine-motor eye exercises (n=18) or to do no exercise (n=9) for a period of four weeks. Orbicularis oculi muscle strength was measured in paretic and unaffected eyes at baseline, two weeks and four weeks using an Orbicularis Oculi Pressure Sensor. RESULTS: The average initial strength of the paretic orbicularis oculi muscle was 34±10 mm Hg compared to the unaffected muscle which was 103±17 mm Hg at baseline (n=27). By four weeks, patients who performed eye exercises improved more than those who did not (74.4 versus 47.4 mm Hg, p=0.029). While there was some loss to follow-up, 63.8% of patients performing exercises (7/11) achieved functional recovery at four weeks compared to 12.5% (1/8) of those who did not (p=0.059). Steroids and antivirals were found to have independent positive effects on improving functional outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Eye exercises have a potential role in the treatment of idiopathic cranial nerve VII paresis and warrant consideration in the management of these patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".