ArticleJournal of neurology2025
Separation of stroke from vestibular neuritis using the video head impulse test: machine learning models versus expert clinicians.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A digital neurotology history: Characteristics and inter-rater reliability.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- Current insights on predicting vestibular diseases using machine learning.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAcute vestibular syndrome usually represents either vestibular neuritis (VN), an innocuous viral illness, or posterior circulation stroke (PCS), a potentially life-threatening event. The video head impulse test (VHIT) is a quantitative measure of the vestibulo-ocular reflex that can distinguish between these two diagnoses. It can be rapidly performed at the bedside by any trained healthcare professional but requires interpretation by an expert clinician. We developed machine learning models to differentiate between PCS and VN using only the VHIT.
methodsWe trained machine learning classification models using unedited head- and eye-velocity data from acute VHIT performed in an Emergency Room on patients presenting with acute vestibular syndrome and whose final diagnosis was VN or PCS. The models were validated using an independent test dataset collected at a second institution. We compared the performance of the models against expert clinicians as well as a widely used VHIT metric: the gain cutoff value.
resultsThe training and test datasets comprised 252 and 49 patients, respectively. In the test dataset, the best machine learning model identified VN with 87.8% (95% CI 77.6%-95.9%) accuracy. Model performance was not significantly different (p = 0.56) from that of blinded expert clinicians who achieved 85.7% accuracy (75.5%-93.9%) and was superior (p = 0.01) to that of the optimal gain cutoff value (75.5% accuracy (63.8%-85.7%)).
conclusionMachine learning models can effectively differentiate PCS from VN using only VHIT data, with comparable accuracy to expert clinicians. They hold promise as a tool to assist Emergency Room clinicians evaluating patients with acute vestibular syndrome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.