Evaluating the Vestibulo-Ocular Reflex Following Traumatic Brain Injury: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose:To identify the tests and tools used to evaluate vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) function after traumatic brain injury (TBI) in all age groups and across TBI severity.Methods: An electronic search was conducted to include relevant peer-reviewed literature published up to November 2019. Studies included those done with humans, of all ages, and had assessments of oculomotor and/or vestibulo-ocular function in TBI.Results: Of the articles selected (N = 48), 50% were published in 2018/2019. A majority targeted mild TBI, with equal focus on non-computerized versus computerized measures of VOR. Computerized assessment tools used were videonystagmography, dynamic visual acuity/gaze stability, rotary chair, and caloric irrigation. Non-computerized tests included the head thrust, dynamic visual acuity, gaze stability, head shaking nystagmus, rotary chair tests and the vestibular/oculomotor screening tool. High variability in administration protocols were identified. Namely: testing environment, distances/positioning/equipment used, active/passive state, procedures, rotation frequencies, and variables observed.Conclusions: There is a rapid growth of literature incorporating VOR tests in mild TBI but moderate and severe TBI continues to be under-represented. Determining how to pair a clinical test with a computerized tool and developing standardized protocols when administering tests will help in developing an optimal battery assessing the VOR in TBI.
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 | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".