A closer look at subjective caloric sensations: Is there more to vertigo than spinning?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a prevailing opinion that spinning sensations signify a peripheral vestibular pathology while non-spinning sensations are not of vestibular origin. OBJECTIVES: 1) Characterize the subjective sensations reported by patients during caloric testing. 2) Assess if the sensation was correlated with the peak slow phase velocity (SPV). METHODS: Retrospective chart review at a Canadian adult tertiary-quaternary care balance centre for patients undergoing diagnostic caloric testing between December 2014 and September 2015. RESULTS: Of 163 patients included, 122 had normal calorics and 41 demonstrated unilateral weakness. Spinning/rotatory movements were the most commonly reported sensations (55-70%). No sensation was reported among 10-20% of patients. Other non-rotatory sensations were reported 20-25% of the time. Both lack of sensation and other sensations were more likely to be correlated with SPVs that were significantly lower than those associated with spinning/rotating sensations. However, 18% of patients with normal calorics and robust SPVs with warm irrigation still reported non-spinning sensations. CONCLUSIONS: During caloric irrigation, subjective sensations other than spinning and rotating are reported 20-25% of the time and these tend to be associated with lower peak SPV. Non-spinning vertigo is not uncommon as a subjective description of vestibular sensation even in normal patients with strong SPVs.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".