Vestibular Oriented Research Meeting, February 16 – 17, 2021
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vestibular hypofunction may affect tens of millions of adults in Europe and the United States. Screening persons suspected to have vestibular loss is an important step in determining whether a diagnostic workup, referral to specialists, and/or vestibular rehabilitation is/are needed. Barriers to effective screening include the need for specialized training to administer and interpret tests; the cost, size, and complexity of related equipment; and/or suboptimal discriminative validity of available tests. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop a novel screening method for vestibular dysfunction. We hypothesized that performance of walking under challenging sensory conditions would discriminate vestibular-impaired from healthy adults. Seventeen healthy adults (39.3 11.2 years old, 13 female) and 17 adults with laboratory-confi rmed peripheral vestibular hypofunction (61.1 10.2 years, 9 female) participated. In this prospective study, participants underwent the horizontal and vertical non-instrumented dynamic visual acuity test (NI-DVAT); the Five-times Sit-to-stand Test (FTSTST); next-generation Sensory Organization Test (NG-SOT); and the Functional Gait Assessment (FGA). The Gait Disorientation Test (GDT) was developed using FGA1 (walking, eyes open) and FGA8 (walking, eyes closed). We calculated the GDT result by subtracting the time needed to complete FGA1 from the time needed to complete FGA8. We assessed the criterion validity of these tests using the area under the curve (AUC) from receiver operator characteristic analyses and computed the sensitivity and specifi city (95% confi dence interval [CI]). The AUCs (95% CI; threshold) were as follows: horizontal NI-DVAT = 0.83 (0.69, 0.97; 3 line change), vertical NI-DVAT = 0.86 (0.73, 0.99; 3 line change), FTSTST = 0.85 (0.72, 0.97; 8.7 s), NG-SOT composite score = 0.93 (0.86, 1; 75.7), FGA total score = 0.95 (0.87, 1; 28.5), and GDT = 0.91 (0.82, 0.99; 4.5 s). The sensitivity and specifi city (95% CI) of the GDT were 82% (57%, 96%). Analyzing the GDT result in parallel with using a threshold of 8 seconds for its walking eyes closed component provided 98% sensitivity and 81% specifi city. The GDT is a straightforward, low-tech, low-cost tool that providers may use to identify vestibular-impaired adults. The discriminative ability of the GDT exceeds or is comparable to tests that require specialized training, complex and expensive equipment, and/or more time to perform.
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 | 0.011 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".