Defining Clinical-Posturographic and Intra- Posturographic Discordances: What Do These Two Concepts Mean?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The European Society for Clinical Evaluation of Balance Disorders - ESCEBD - Executive Committee meets yearly to identify and address clinical equilibrium problems that are not yet well understood. This particular discussion addressed "discordances" (defined as "lack of agreement") in clinical assessment. Sometimes there is disagreement between a clinical assessment and measured abnormality (ies); sometimes the results within the assessment do not agree. This is sometimes thought of as "malingering" or an attempt to exaggerate what is wrong, but this is not always the case. The Committee discussed the clinical significance of unexpected findings in a patient's assessment. For example intraposturographic discordances sometimes exhibit findings (eg performance on more difficult trials may sometimes be better than on simpler trials). This can be suggestive of malingering, but in some situations can be a legitimate finding. The extreme malingerer and the genuine patient are at opposite ends of a spectrum but there are many variations along this spectrum and clinicians need to be cautious, as a posturography assessment may or may not be diagnostically helpful. Sometimes there is poor correlation between symptom severity and test results. Interpretation of posturography performance can at times be difficult and a patient's results must be correlated with clinical findings without stereotyping the patient. It is only in this situation that assessment in a diagnostic setting can be carried out in an accurate and unbiased manner.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".