MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385191738 · doi:10.1097/wno.0000000000001944

Unilateral Pendular Nystagmus in Multiple Sclerosis: A Case Series

2023· article· en· W4385191738 on OpenAlexaff
Amir R. Vosoughi, Natalie Brossard-Barbosa, Jonathan A. Micieli, Edward Margolin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuro-Ophthalmology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVestibular and auditory disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNystagmusOscillopsiaMultiple sclerosisOptokinetic reflexVisual acuityLesionOphthalmologyEye movementAudiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Acquired pendular nystagmus is most often seen in patients with demyelinating disease. Although it is often bilateral, rare cases may be monocular. There is paucity of data on the spectrum of clinical presentation, underlying mechanism, and response to treatment in patients with monocular pendular nystagmus. METHODS: Retrospective case series of patients with monocular pendular nystagmus seen in 2 tertiary neuro-ophthalmology clinics between January 2019 and June 2022. All patients underwent a complete neuro-ophthalmological assessment and MRI. RESULTS: We describe 5 patients (3 women) aged 31-49 with monocular pendular nystagmus. All had a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Three patients had horizontal and 2 had vertical pendular nystagmus. The Snellen visual acuity in the eye with pendular nystagmus varied from 20/20 to 20/200. Two patients were asymptomatic and 3 suffered visually debilitating oscillopsia. Treatment response was available for 2 patients, both of which responded well to treatment with memantine. The pendular nystagmus was observed in the eye with worse visual acuity in 4 of 5 cases (80%). Three patients had bilateral pontine lesions, and 2 had unilateral pontine lesion ipsilateral to the side of nystagmus. CONCLUSIONS: Monocular pendular nystagmus in adults is seen most often in patients with multiple sclerosis. Asymmetry in brainstem lesions and afferent visual input may be the culprit. Treatment with memantine may result in significant improvement in symptomatic patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuro-OphthalmologySame topicVestibular and auditory disordersFrench-language works237,207