Vestibular evoked myogenic potentials in healthy control subjects using the head rotation method.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the methodology for vestibular evoked myogenic potential (VEMP) testing, with a focus on the usefulness of the head rotation as a means to tense the sternocleidomastoid (SCM) muscles. Our goal was to obtain normative data for our site and methodology. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Outpatient otolaryngology clinic. METHODS: P rospective study. Volunteers without an otologic history were selected. While sitting, the volunteer rotated his or her head away from the tested ear so as to tense the ipsilateral SCM. While the SCM was tensed, the volunteer was presented with loud clicks. Responses were averaged. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: VEMP positive (pI) wave latency and amplitude, VEMP negative (nI) wave latency and amplitude, and volunteer ability to perform the head rotation method. RESULTS: In healthy controls, average P1 latencies (milliseconds) were 12.58 +/- 0.39 and N1 latencies were 21.88 +/- 0.40. Average P1 amplitudes (microvolts) were 20.48 +/- 1.94 and N1 amplitudes were -25.56 +/- 2.21. VEMP amplitudes were less consistent in patients with limited neck strength. CONCLUSIONS: VEMPs can be elicited from the majority of volunteers. The test is easy to perform, and it is only mildly uncomfortable for most patients using the head rotation method.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".