The Mirror Effect Plus Protocol for acute Bell’s palsy: a randomised and longitudinal study on facial rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".