ArticleJournal of neurology2024
Machine learning models help differentiate between causes of recurrent spontaneous vertigo.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Separating stroke and acute unilateral vestibulopathy using history, examination and vestibular tests: a machine learning approach.Journal of neurology · 2026Article
- Can Vascular Vertigo Be Recognized by Artificial Intelligence Methods?Noro psikiyatri arsivi · 2026Article
- Diagnostic challenges in vestibular migraine-clinical differentiation from Menière's disease and discrepancies with current classification criteria.Journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Clinical decision support for vestibular diagnosis: large-scale machine learning with lived experience coaching.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Multidimensional Feature Analysis of Meniere's Disease and Vestibular Migraine: Insights from Machine Learning and Vestibular Testing.Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO · 2025Article
- The role of ChatGPT-4o in differential diagnosis and management of vertigo-related disorders.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Current insights on predicting vestibular diseases using machine learning.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Audiology: A Scoping Review of Current Applications and Future Directions.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Construction and Interpretability of a Multimodal Deep Learning Model of Electronystagmography-Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography for Early Screening of Alzheimer's Disease.American journal of Alzheimer's disease and other dementiasArticle
- Artificial intelligence-driven clinical auxiliary diagnosis of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo.Frontiers in neurologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVestibular migraine (VM) and Menière's disease (MD) are two common causes of recurrent spontaneous vertigo. Using history, video-nystagmography and audiovestibular tests, we developed machine learning models to separate these two disorders.
methodsWe recruited patients with VM or MD from a neurology outpatient facility. One hundred features from six "feature subsets": history, acute video-nystagmography and four laboratory tests (video head impulse test, vestibular-evoked myogenic potentials, caloric testing and audiogram) were used. We applied ten machine learning algorithms to develop classification models. Modelling was performed using three "tiers" of data availability to simulate three clinical settings. "Tier 1" used all available data to simulate the neuro-otology clinic, "Tier 2" used only history, audiogram and caloric test data, representing the general neurology clinic, and "Tier 3" used history alone as occurs in primary care. Model performance was evaluated using tenfold cross-validation.
resultsData from 160 patients with VM and 114 with MD were used for model development. All models effectively separated the two disorders for all three tiers, with accuracies of 85.77-97.81%. The best performing algorithms (AdaBoost and Random Forest) yielded accuracies of 97.81% (95% CI 95.24-99.60), 94.53% (91.09-99.52%) and 92.34% (92.28-96.76%) for tiers 1, 2 and 3. The best feature subset combination was history, acute video-nystagmography, video head impulse test and caloric testing, and the best single feature subset was history.
conclusionsMachine learning models can accurately differentiate between VM and MD and are promising tools to assist diagnosis by medical practitioners with diverse levels of expertise and resources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.