Exercise-Based VRT Shows Benefits in Balance and Postural Stability in Adult Patients with Unilateral Vestibular Hypofunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objective: Vestibular rehabilitation therapy (VRT) is an exercise-based program designed to improve balance function and alleviate problems related to dizziness, including vestibular hypofunction. This study aimed to evaluate the therapeutic effects of VRT exercises on balance function in adults with unilateral vestibular hypofunction (UVH). Methods: Thirty-one patients (mean age: 39.48 (±10.96) years old) with confirmed UVH participated in this study. The VRT program consisted of habituation and adaptation exercises in combination with gait and balance exercises. The handicapping influences of dizziness were measured with a dizziness handicap inventory (DHI) scale to measure the level of respondent’s performance on physical, emotional, and functional dimensions. Visual analogue scale (VAS) was also used to rate the severity of dizziness symptoms. The DHI and VAS scales were assessed pre-intervention and post-intervention at one, two, and four weeks follow-ups after the last rehabilitation session. Results: An analysis of variance showed a significant reduction and a consequent improvement in DHI scores after vestibular exercises in all domains: emotional, physical and functional (p < 0.001). The mean total DHI score significantly decreased by 15 points after one week, 24 points after two weeks and 15 points after four weeks of the last VRT session. The mean baseline VAS score was 7.71 (±0.91) that significantly decreased at one, two, and four weeks post-intervention to 4.81 (±0.73), 3.77 (±0.61), and 3.16 (±0.97), respectively (p<0.001). Conclusion: The exercise-based VRT shows benefits for adult patients with chronic dizziness concerning improvement in the vertigo symptom scale, fall risk, balance and emotional status.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".