Are Implantable Loop Recorders Useful in Detecting Arrhythmias in Children with Unexplained Syncope?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Syncope and presyncope are symptoms that occur infrequently in children, are unpredictable, and represent a diagnostic challenge to the physician. Conventional diagnostic investigations are often unable to establish a diagnosis, making it difficult to determine patient risk and direct appropriate therapy. The implantable loop recorder (ILR) is a medical device that was created for prolonged monitoring of heart rate and rhythm and has been used in a limited number of pediatric studies in which the cause of the syncope is unknown. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of the clinical, surgical, and follow-up data of patients who had ILR devices implanted after conventional testing failed to identify a cause for their symptoms. RESULTS: The diagnostic yield of the ILR device in unmasking the cause for symptoms in our patient cohort was 64%. In our study, manually activated events accounted for 71% of all documented episodes and 68% of the cases involving hemodynamically important arrhythmias or transient rhythm changes. The ILR device can be safely implanted and explanted in children without significant morbidity, in most cases. None of our patients experienced any long-term adverse events associated with placement of the device and all were alive at last follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the ILR device is a useful tool to help unmask arrhythmias as a cause of unexplained syncope in children. Patient selection for who should and should not have an ILR device implanted will continue to influence its diagnostic utility and generate controversy among stakeholders.
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 | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".