Receiving Long‐Term Disability or Pursuing a Legal Claim May Prevent Recovery From Chronic Dizziness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Chronic dizziness (CD) and imbalance have multiple etiologies. CD is strongly linked with psychiatric and psychological comorbidities, thus an interdisciplinary approach, including psychopharmacological interventions, is recommended. Despite the use of this comprehensive treatment approach, the recovery of individuals with CD that pursue long-term disability (LTD) insurance or legal claims (LC) appears hampered. As such, we aimed to compare symptom recovery from CD in an interdisciplinary setting between patients receiving LTD/LC versus those who were not, and to explore the factors that may contribute to changes in symptom severity. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Dizziness-related diagnoses were extracted from the charts of 195 adults in an outpatient interdisciplinary neurotology clinic in Toronto, Canada. Patients with baseline Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) and Dizziness Catastrophizing Scale (DCS) assessments between August 2012 and July 2018 and a mean follow-up visit within approximately 10 months were included. The study participants were categorized as "LTD/LC+" (n = 92) or "LTD/LC-" (n = 103), referring to either receiving or pursuing LTD/LC or not, respectively. RESULTS: There were differences in the mean percentage changes in DHI (t[187] = 3.02, P = .003) and DCS (t[179] = 2.63, P = .009) scores between LTD/LC+ and LTD/LC- patients. LTD/LC+ patients showed 8.0% and 7.6% mean increases in DHI and DCS scores, respectively, whereas LTD/LC- patients showed 21.5% and 25.9% reductions in DHI and DCS scores, respectively, controlling for age, sex, and baseline illness severity. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving or pursuing LTD insurance or a legal claim did not improve from CD and dizziness catastrophizing compared to those who were not. Future studies are required to test these findings prospectively and to determine the factors that may contribute to symptom recovery, including the anxiety-aggravating effects of the LTD/LC process and the deleterious consequences of developing a sick-role while afflicted with a chronic illness. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 132:655-661, 2022.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".