Investigating syncope: a review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review focuses on recent literature on the cardiovascular investigation of syncope. RECENT FINDINGS: Syncope is a common and complex clinical entity with many varied etiologies, the diagnosis of which can often be elusive. Recent advances in the area of investigation in syncope include improvements in technologies for arrhythmia event monitoring and an increase in applicability and efficacy of traditional investigations. These advances have increased our ability to manage syncope. SUMMARY: A better understanding of the etiology of syncope in certain cohorts has allowed tailoring of investigations and management of syncope. This is evident when syncope occurs in the presence of structural heart disease, which is associated with a higher incidence of arrhythmias and an increased 1-year mortality. Patients with left-ventricular dysfunction should be considered candidates for an implantable cardioverter defibrillator based on heart function and syncopal presentation. In the absence of significant heart disease, investigations need to be tailored to diagnose neurally mediated causes for syncope and detection of intermittent bradycardia. The improved understanding of syncope has arisen from studies using improved investigational tools for syncope, in particular loop recorders, which are able to monitor cardiac rhythm over long periods. In those without structural heart disease and undifferentiated syncope, neurally mediated causes should be pursed initially. Tilt testing and loop recorders are employed most often in this cohort. Electrophysiological studies have largely been supplanted by implantable cardioverter defibrillator use in structural heart disease, with a low yield in patients with preserved heart function.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".