MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415731721 · doi:10.1186/s12984-025-01749-y

Electrical vestibular stimulation to improve balance in older adults: a pilot randomized controlled trial

2025· article· en· W4415731721 on OpenAlexafffund
Jordan King, Noah M. Walters, Jenna Al Bastami, Niki Mehri, Adrian D. C. Chan, Evan Ferrier, Serena L. Orr, Jocelyn Rempel, Andreas Hauenstein, Joshua M. Roper, John D. Ralston, Ryan M. Peters

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVestibular and auditory disorders
Canadian institutionsMount Royal UniversityHotchkiss Brain InstituteAlberta Children's HospitalOntario Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary
KeywordsBalance (ability)Randomized controlled trialBalance problemsVestibular systemIntervention (counseling)Functional electrical stimulationNeurologyBalance disorders

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Falls are the leading cause of injury-related hospitalizations among older adults, often linked to vestibular dysfunction. While vestibular rehabilitation therapy is a standard intervention, designed to compensate for vestibular impairment with proprioceptive and visual cues, potential cumulative effects of noisy Electrical Vestibular Stimulation (nEVS) on balance improvement in older adults are not well understood. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the efficacy of cumulative nEVS dosing in improving static balance, its potential mechanisms, and clinical significance. METHODS: A single-blind, pilot randomized controlled trial enrolled 40 older adults (mean age: 77.7 ± 11.8 years). Participants were randomly assigned to a Stimulation group (nEVS intervention) or Sham group. The nEVS regimen included low-amplitude wideband stimulation (± 0.35 mA, 0.001-300 Hz) for 20 min, three times weekly for six weeks. Balance performance was assessed immediately before and after nEVS using a head-mounted sensor to measure physiological vibration acceleration ('Phybrata') power as a measure of postural stability in four conditions: Floor Eyes Open, Floor Eyes Closed, Foam Eyes Open, and Foam Eyes Closed. Follow-ups occurred at 3 months and 6 months post-intervention. RESULTS: The Stimulation group exhibited significant and sustained reductions in Phybrata power with improvements observed as early as Session 3 and persisting through 6 months in Foam EC. Additionally, the Sham group demonstrated smaller reductions in Phybrata power, potentially reflecting a learning effect. CONCLUSION: nEVS may be a safe and effective intervention for improving balance in older adults. Its benefits in addressing age-related deficits in balance and sensory integration highlight its potential for fall prevention and rehabilitation. This study was retrospectively registered as a clinical trial on February 25, 2025 (NCT06846047).

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)0.002
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designRandomized trial
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroEngineering and RehabilitationSame topicVestibular and auditory disordersFrench-language works237,207