Dizziness, psychological disorders and cognitive decline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Dizziness is a common disorder, particularly among the elderly population. Aim of this paper was to revise the current concepts surrounding the relationship between dizziness, psychological disorders and cognitive decline. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This is a PRISMA-compliant systematic review, including observational studies in people with dizziness. Database inception, Medline/Cochrane/Embase/Web of Science/Scopus/NHS evidence were searched until October 30, 2019. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall 22 studies, and 65,730 participants were included. Eleven studies were cross-sectional, 7 cross-sectional controlled, 2 prospective case-control, 1 retrospective case series, and 1 cohort study. The persistence of vestibular impairment (for 6 months or more) was correlated to the presence of psychological disorders affecting patient's Quality of Life and causing social anxiety, particularly in some conditions such as Ménière's disease. Interestingly, vestibular loss has been also correlated to cognitive impairment, with certain vestibular dysfunctions reported to be more prevalent in cognitive impaired individuals. CONCLUSIONS: The current literature suggests that there is an association between vestibular function, psychological disorders and cognitive functions. The findings from this review could be useful in informing on the need for a multidimensional diagnostic and rehabilitative programs for patients with dizziness. More studies could explore the role of counseling or behavioral therapy with an aim to reduce the perceived dizziness-related disability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".