Clinical and VNG Features in Anterior Canal BPPV—An Analysis of 13 Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To define diagnostic VNG features in anterior canal BPPV during positional testing (Dix-Hallpike, supine head hanging, and McClure Pagnini tests). Study Design: A retrospective study of patients diagnosed with anterior canal BPPV across four referral centers in New Delhi, Kochi, Bangalore, and Dubai. Subjects and Methods: Clinical records of 13 patients with AC BPPV out of 1,350 cases, during a 3-years period, were reviewed and analyzed by four specialists. Results: Four patients had positional down beating nystagmus with symptoms of vertigo during the bilateral DHP maneuver. Seven cases had positional down beating nystagmus only on one side of DHP. Typical down beating nystagmus was seen in 10 out of 13 cases during the straight head hanging maneuver. Down beating torsional nystagmus was seen in 6 out of 13 cases. Down beating with horizontal nystagmus was seen in three cases (in DHP and MCP mainly) while pure down beating nystagmus during SHH was only seen in four cases. Conclusion: We conclude that anterior canal BPPV is a rare but definite entity. It may not be apparent on positional testing the first time, so repeated testing may be needed. The most consistent diagnostic maneuver is SHH though there were patients in which findings could only be elicited using DHP testing. We recommend a testing protocol that includes DHP testing on both sides and SHH. MCP testing may also evoke DBN with or without the torsional component. Reversal of nystagmus on reversal of testing position is unusual but can occur. The Yacovino maneuver is effective in resolving AC BPPV. We also propose a hypothesis that explains why DHP testing is sensitive to AC BPPV on either side, whereas MCP lateral position on one side is only sensitive to AC BPPV on one side. We have explained a possible role for the McClure Pagnini test in side determination and therapeutic implications.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".