ArticleScientific reports2026
A rule-based mobile screening classifier for six ICVD-defined vestibular disorders: a pilot study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Vestibular disorders are common conditions requiring specialized evaluation. This pilot study aimed to assess the feasibility of a rule-based mobile screening classifier for six ICVD-defined vestibular disorders and to compare its top-two candidate outputs with clinical diagnoses made by an experienced otologist. In this prospective, single-center pilot evaluation, 86 participants (65 females, mean age 59.9 ± 15.7 years) presenting with vestibular symptoms at a specialized clinic completed a 47-item questionnaire using a tablet device and underwent a comprehensive clinical evaluation including history taking and otologic and neurologic examination by an experienced otologist. The performance of the mobile classifier was measured by comparing its top two candidate outputs against the expert reference diagnoses. The mobile classifier demonstrated an overall classification accuracy of 82.1%, with 51.2% of cases completely correct and 30.9% partially correct. For vascular vertigo specifically, the screening branch showed an accuracy of 82.7%. Participants completed the questionnaire in an average time of 7.24 minutes. These pilot findings support the feasibility of the rule-based mobile classifier as an initial screening aid for prevalent vestibular disorders. External multi-center validation in independent cohorts will be required before the tool can be regarded as a clinically validated screening instrument.
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.