The Clinical Use of the Suppression Head Impulse Paradigm in Patients with Vestibulopathy: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This review aims to explore the potential clinical application of the suppression head impulse paradigm (SHIMP) in patients with unilateral and bilateral vestibulopathy. METHODS: An electronic search was conducted by two independent reviewers in the following databases: Embase, MEDLINE (PubMed), and Scopus. The screening of titles, abstracts, and full texts and data extraction were undertaken independently by pairs of reviewers. The included studies were quality appraised using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: The results were reported following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). Our search yielded 935 unique records, of which 16 remained after screening titles and abstracts. A total of 11 studies were included, covering a total of 418 participants (230 patients and 188 healthy participants). CONCLUSION: SHIMP could be a useful tool to diagnose a VOR alteration in patients with vestibulopathy in both the acute and chronic phases of vestibulopathy.
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 | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".