Durable improvement in participant-reported measures of disability and objective posturography after computerized vestibular retraining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unilateral vestibular deficits are associated with postural instability and loss of quality of life. Common treatments frequently fail to achieve satisfactory outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To assess the durability of changes in participant-reported disability and objective posturography after computerized vestibular retraining. METHODS: This was a single-group study. Individuals with persistent symptoms of an objectively determined unilateral vestibular deficit completed questionnaires and posturography assessments before and after twelve sessions of computerized retraining, and 4-6 months and 10-12 months after treatment. RESULTS: 13 participants completed the post-treatment assessments; 9 completed the follow up. Mean improvements in perceived disability at 4-6 months after retraining were: DHI 14.3 points (95% confidence interval 4.0 to 24.5), ABC scale 14.9 points (4.3 to 25.6), FES-I 11.6 points (-3.2 to 26.5).The SOT composite score increased by 11.4 points (95% CI 1.9 to 20.9; p = 0.0175) immediately after treatment, 8.9 points (-2.9 to 20.7; p = 0.1528) at 4-6 months, and 10.6 points (2.2 to 19.0; p = 0.0162) after 10-12 months. At the 10-12 month time point, the areas of the functional stability region increased significantly for both endpoint excursion (p = 0.0086) and maximum excursion (p = 0.0025). CONCLUSION: Computerized vestibular retraining was associated with improved participant reported disability and objective measures of postural stability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".