Misperception of Visual Vertical in Peripheral Vestibular Disorders. A Systematic Review With Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The main aim was to assess the misperception of visual verticality (VV) in patients with peripheral vestibular disorders (PVD) in comparison with healthy controls. As secondary objectives, we checked if vestibular, visual, and somatosensory postural pathways can be affected in patients with PVD as well as the characteristics of PVD that could influence on the VV perception. METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis was carried out. The bibliographic search was performed in January, 2020 in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (WOS), CINAHL, SciELO. Two reviewers selected the studies that met the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The VV perception was assessed in two meta-analysis according the used test: The Subjective Visual Vertical test (SVV) or the Rod and Frame Test (RFT) in comparison with healthy subjects. The Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) and its 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) was used to estimate the pooled effect. Publication bias was assessed using the Egger's test and Trim and Fill Method. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies were included reporting 3,524 participants. PVD patients showed a misperception of the VV with SVV (SMD = 1.510; 95%CI: 1.190-1.830) and the RFT (SMD = 0.816; 95% CI: 0.234-1.398) respect healthy controls. A subgroup of patients in the acute phase (SMD = 2.5; 95%CI: 2.022-2.978) and who underwent a vestibular surgery (SMD = 2.241; 95%CI: 1.471-3.011) had the greater misperception of VV. CONCLUSION: Patients with PVD show an alteration in the perception of VV, being greater in the acute phase and after a vestibular surgery. Laryngoscope, 131:1110-1121, 2021.
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 | 0.015 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".