Dynamic posturography after computerized vestibular retraining for stable unilateral vestibular deficits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Balance deficits increase the risk of falls and compromise quality of life. Current treatment modalities do not resolve symptoms for many patients.Aims/objectives To measure changes in objective posturography after a computerized vestibular retraining therapy protocol.Materials and methods This was a single-arm interventional study of individuals with a stable unilateral vestibular deficit present for greater than six months. Participants underwent 12 twice-weekly sessions of computerized vestibular retraining therapy. Objective response was measured by the Sensory Organization Test and questionnaires were administered to measure subjective changes.Results We enrolled 13 participants (5 females and 8 males) with a median age of 51 years (range 18 to 67). After retraining, the Sensory Organization Test composite score improved by 8.8 (95% CI 0.6 to 19.1) and this correlated with improvement in the Falls Efficacy Scale-International questionnaire (rs −0.6472; 95% CI −0.8872 to − 0.1316). Participants with moderate-to-severe disability at baseline (n = 7) demonstrated greater improvement in the composite score (14.6; 95% CI 7.0 to 36.9).Conclusions and significance Computerized vestibular retraining therapy for stable unilateral vestibular deficits is associated with improvement in dynamic balance performance. Posturography improvements correlated with a reduction in perceived fall risk. Trial Registration Information Clinicaltrials.gov registration NCT04875013; 04/27/2021
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".