Comparison of 3 Grading Systems (House-Brackmann, Sunnybrook, Sydney) for the Assessment of Facial Nerve Paralysis and Prediction of Neural Recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Currently, multiple classification systems exist for the assessment of facial nerve paralysis. This study was designed to choose the most practical system for use in a clinical setting depending on the clinician need. We compared the responsiveness of the 3 facial nerve grading systems, i.e., House-Brackmann, Sydney, and Sunnybrook, as the subjective method and compared the outcomes with the objective method, i.e., the nerve conduction study. The correlation between the subjective and objective assessments was determined. Methods: A total of 22 consented participants with facial palsy was assessed with photos and videography recordings where they performed 10 standard facial expressions. The severity of facial paralysis was evaluated with the House-Brackmann, Sydney, and Sunnybrook grading scales subjectively and with the facial nerve conduction study objectively. The assessments were repeated after 3 months. Results: A Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed that there were statistically significant change in all three gradings after 3-month of assessment. The responsiveness of the nerve conduction study was significant for the nasalis and orbicularis oris muscles. It was not significant for the orbicularis oculi muscle. The nasalis and orbicularis oculi showed statistically significant correlation with the three classification systems except for the orbicularis oculi muscle. Conclusions: All three grading systems, House-Brackmann, Sydney, and Sunnybrook, showed statistically significant responsiveness after 3 months of evaluation. The nasalis and orbicularis oculi muscle can be used to predict facial palsy recovery because they showed strong positive and negative correlations with the extent of facial nerve degeneration from the nerve conduction study.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".