The Effect of Spinal Tap Test on Different Sensory Modalities of Postural Stability in Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Postural instability in patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) is a most crucial symptom leading to falls with secondary complications. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the therapeutic effect of spinal tap on postural stability in these patients. METHODS: Seventeen patients with clinical symptoms of NPH were examined using gait scale, computerized dynamic posturography (CDP), and neuropsychological assessment. Examinations were done before and after spinal tap test. RESULTS: The gait score showed a significant improvement 24 h after spinal tap test in all subtests and in the sum score (p < 0.003), while neuropsychological assessment did not reveal significant differences 72 h after spinal tap test. CDP showed significant improvements after spinal tap test in the Sensory Organization Tests 2 (p = 0.017), 4 (p = 0.001), and 5 (p = 0.009) and the composite score (p = 0.01). Patients showed best performance in somatosensory and worst performance in vestibular dominated tests. Vestibular dominated tests did not improve significantly after spinal tap test, while somatosensory and visual dominated tests did. CONCLUSION: Postural stability in NPH is predominantly affected by deficient vestibular functions, which did not improve after spinal tap test. Conditions which improved best were mainly independent from visual control and are based on proprioceptive functions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".