Optimum Number of Sweeps in Clinical OVEMP Recording; How Many Sweeps are Necessary?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Ocular vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials (OVEMPs) in our hands provide us with reproducible and consistent results; however, it has been shown that the OVEMP amplitude decreases with increased stimulus duration. The exact number of stimuli for OVEMP recording is not consistent among the published papers describing this test. We aimed to determine the number of stimuli needed to produce a satisfactory OVEMP response and the consequences of a more prolonged stimulation to the OVEMP response. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 50 OVEMP patient recordings and found that the average number of sweeps carried out was 26. We carried out three different OVEMP recordings using our standard protocol of (1) a "standard" OVEMP protocol, in which we record until the OVEMP wave becomes obvious; (2) an OVEMP recording using our average of 26 sweeps; and (3) an OVEMP recording with twice as many sweeps. RESULTS: OVEMP latencies did not change when using different number of sweeps; however, the amplitudes showed a significant decrease with an increasing number of sweeps. CONCLUSION: OVEMPs can be completed in a satisfactory manner with a much lower number of stimuli than those usually carried out. Reducing the stimulus number reduces the time taken for the test, minimizes the cochlear insult while not reducing the valuable information obtained, and maximizes the amplitude of the stimulus, possibly increasing the accuracy of measuring interaural amplitudes and helping to measure asymmetry.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".