Hemorrhagic stroke after Epley maneuver: A case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This is the first case to our knowledge of a serious adverse event following the Epley maneuver, which is the treatment of choice for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV), the most common vestibular disorder in adults. CASE PRESENTATION: A 77 year old female presented for outpatient evaluation of vertigo at a tertiary otolaryngology clinic. She was found to have BPPV clinically, and elected to have a particle repositioning maneuver (Epley maneuver) performed in clinic. Immediately following Epley maneuver, she had severe nausea and vomiting, with evolving visual changes. A CT angiogram of the brain was performed urgently through the emergency department and demonstrated an acute intraparenchymal hemorrhage in the occipital lobe. After medical stabilization and rehabilitation, the patient continues to have a permanent visual field deficit. CONCLUSION: The Epley maneuver is safe and effective, and there are no prior reports of serious adverse events associated with its use. This case, in which a patient experienced a hemorrhagic stroke after undergoing the Epley maneuver, is the first and sole case in the medical literature of an Epley-associated serious adverse event. The indirect causation and extreme rarity of this event do not warrant any change to patterns of practice.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".