Vasovagal syncope in medical students and their first-degree relatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To determine the effect of family history on the likelihood of vasovagal syncope. METHODS AND RESULTS: Sixty-two medical students and 228 first-degree relatives were studied. Vasovagal syncope was ascertained with the Calgary syncope symptom score. The effects of the sex of the subject and parental syncope history on the likelihood of offspring fainting were described using Kaplan-Meier estimates and analysed using proportional hazards regression. The prevalence of vasovagal syncope was 32% and the median age of first faint in those who fainted was 14 years. More females than males fainted [42 vs. 31%; P=0.02; hazard ratio (HR) 1.34 (95% CI 1.07-1.68)]. An individual with two fainting parents was more likely to faint than one with no fainting parents [P<0.0001; HR 3.4 (95% CI 1.7-7.03)]. In the proportional hazards model, offspring of either sex whose mother faints are more likely to faint than those whose mother does not faint [HR 2.86 (95% CI 1.54-5.31)]. Having a father who faints significantly increases the risk of syncope in sons [HR 4.12 (95%CI 1.39-12.31)], but not in daughters [HR 1.18 (95% CI 0.56-3.34)]. CONCLUSION: Family history and sex of subject are important predictors of vasovagal syncope in offspring.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".