MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2345578795 · doi:10.1017/cjn.2015.330

The Under-Utilization of the Head Impulse Test in the Emergency Department

2016· article· en· W2345578795 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Tim McDowell, Fraser Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVestibular and auditory disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency departmentMedicineHead (geology)Test (biology)Impulse (physics)Medical emergencyEmergency medicinePhysicsPsychiatryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The head impulse test (HIT) is an evidenced based clinical tool to differentiate between peripheral and central causes of vertigo. Our objective was to determine the rate of utilization of the HIT in the emergency room (ER). METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients presenting to the ER over one year who received a final diagnosis of dizziness or vertigo. Details of clinical examinations, investigations, and diagnosis were recorded. Patients were grouped into episodic, acute constant, and chronic vertigo groups. RESULTS: HIT was performed in only 31 of 642 (5%) patients with vertigo. In the acute constant group it was negative in 6 of 6 patients ultimately diagnosed with stroke and positive in 6 of 13 cases of peripheral vertigo. DISCUSSION: Despite good published evidence regarding its use the HIT is under-utilized in the ER. Physicians need to be aware of the HIT and newer video HITs and make use of them in practice.

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)0.014
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations31
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicVestibular and auditory disordersFrench-language works237,207