MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Predicting the Outcome of Patients with Unexplained Syncope Undergoing Prolonged Monitoring

2002· article· en· W2027065344 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePacing and Clinical Electrophysiology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSyncope (phonology)Logistic regressionBradycardiaOdds ratioInternal medicineVasovagal syncopeSinus rhythmCardiologyTachycardiaSinus bradycardiaImplantable loop recorderHeart rateAtrial fibrillationBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients with unexplained syncope are often considered candidates for prolonged monitoring or empiric pacing when noninvasive and invasive investigations fail to provide a diagnosis. Identifying the outcome of patients undergoing prolonged monitoring that would ultimately benefit from empiric pacing may permit a cost-effective approach to resolution of syncope. Two hundred and six patients (age 57 +/- 18 years, 57% male) underwent prolonged monitoring with an implanted loop recorder for syncope of unknown origin. The median number of previous syncopal episodes was four (mean 29 +/- 133). Prior tilt testing was performed in 63% of patients, and electrophysiological testing in 46%. Symptoms recurred during follow-up in 142 patients (69%). Recurrence was associated with bradycardia leading to pacemaker implantation in 35 patients (17.0%), tachycardia in 12 (5.8%), sinus rhythm in 63 (30.6%), neurally mediated syncope based on rhythm and clinical assessment in 22 (11%), and failed activation in 10 (5%). Logistic regression analysis of baseline variables found that age was the only independent variable that predicted the need for pacing, associated with a 3% increase in risk per advancing year of age (odds ratio 1.027, P = 0.026). Despite this finding, no age group could be identified in which the likelihood of requiring pacing exceeded 30%. Logistic regression also found that patients with structural heart disease were less likely to experience recurrent symptoms during monitoring (49% vs 78%, P = 0.001) and that advancing age was associated with earlier recurrence of symptoms (P = 0.01). The etiology of recurrent syncope is diverse and cannot be predicted by baseline clinical variables. Empiric pacing appears to have little role in the management of this patient population.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it