MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Usefulness of standardized, questionnaire-based history evaluation in the diagnosis of syncope

2013· article· en· W2061036020 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. Z. Pietrucha, I. Bzukala, Mateusz Wnuk, J. Jedrzejczyk-Spaho, D. Mroczek‐Czernecka, Olga Kruszelnicka, M. Konduracka, Agnieszka Borowiec, W Piwowarska

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSyncope (phonology)Orthostatic vital signsMedical historyPhysical examinationPediatricsPhysical therapyEmergency medicineSurgeryInternal medicineBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of our study was evaluation of clinical usefulness of standardized, questionnaire-based history evaluation in the diagnosis of syncope in patients admitted to Syncopal Unit. We observed 920 consecutive pts with syncope (552 women, 60%, aged 12-89 yrs, median of age 41 yrs), diagnosed in our Syncopal Unit of our Department during last 3 years. In all patients a of standardized questionnaire for history evaluation (SQfHE) was used during initial evaluation together with physical examination, ECG evaluation, orthostatic BP measurement and carotid sinus massage in pts over 40 years of age. This questionnaire included question regarding circumstances of syncopal episodes, evaluation of prodroms and syncope course according to last ESC guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of syncope. Calgary Syncope Symptom Score (CSSS) proposed by Sheldon as well as OESIL Score (OS) were implemented into SQfHE. If CSSS was -2 or more reflex syncope was diagnosed or suspected – if concomitant disorders were presented. If OS was higher than 0 - additional diagnosis was performed. Results: Based on initial evaluation diagnosis of syncope was done in 42,4% of pts, Suspected diagnosis of syncope was made in further 39,6% of pts. Only 18% of patient had no established the reason of syncope based on initial evaluation. Hospitalization rate, longer than 1 day was 8,2% Conclusions: Standardized, questionnaire-based history evaluation is very useful in the diagnosis of patients with syncope admitted to Syncopal Unit. Standardized, questionnaire-based history evaluation allow to make diagnosis, based only on initial evaluation in over 40% of patients The ratio of undiagnosed syncope based on initial evaluation was only 18% – in these patients the additional diagnosis was performed Standardized, questionnaire-based history evaluation is also useful in limitation of hospitalization rate needed for diagnosis of patients with syncope

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic DisordersFrench-language works237,207