MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3105328333 · doi:10.1080/00016489.2020.1842905

The Mirror Effect Plus Protocol for acute Bell’s palsy: a randomised and longitudinal study on facial rehabilitation

2020· article· en· W3105328333 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Martineau, Akram Rahal, Éric Piette, Anne‐Marie Chouinard, Karine Marcotte

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Oto-Laryngologica · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Nerve Paralysis Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRehabilitationPalsyBell's palsyRandomized controlled trialPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Small but interesting evidences suggest that facial rehabilitation for acute Bell Palsy (BP) could improve facial outcomes in patients who benefited from optimal medication, but whose symptoms are still severe two weeks after BP's onset. AIMS: This study aimed to provide preliminary evidence of the long-term effects of a new facial retraining based on motor imagery and mirror therapy, the Mirror Effect Plus Protocol (MEPP). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty BP patients received the standard medication for acute BP and were then randomly allocated to the treatment (MEPP) or control group, if their palsy was still at least moderate-to-severe at 14 days post onset. Three blind independent assessors graded the patients' evolution until 6 months after onset. RESULTS: Significant differences between the groups were not found for any measured variable; however, a trend toward better recovery was found in the treatment group for every measured variable. This trend grew bigger for patients with severe or total BP. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests a promising effect of the MEPP on acute severe to total BP but requires further investigation with a larger number of participants. SIGNIFICANCE: Facial rehabilitation should be considered as an adjunct to medication for acute and most severe degrees of BP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.335 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Oto-LaryngologicaSame topicFacial Nerve Paralysis Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207