Evidence-based common sense: the role of clinical history for the diagnosis of vasovagal syncopeThe opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the Editors of the European Heart Journal or of the European Society of Cardiology.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This editorial refers to ‘Diagnostic criteria for vasovagal syncope based on a quantitative history’† by R. Sheldon et al ., on page 344 In the present article a form of fainting is described for which the term ‘vasovagal syncope’ will be found most appropriate Sir Thomas Lewis, 1932 Syncope is a frequent clinical manifestation and represents ∼1–2% of emergency room visits and frequently leads to hospital admission and expensive and frequently unnecessary diagnostic tests.1,2 The cause of syncope is frequently reflex mediated, and particularly vasovagal responses closely followed by orthostatic hypotension and drug-induced syncope are the main causes.3 By and large, the prognosis of patients with vasovagal syncope is benign; however, quality of life may be severely affected in a significant proportion of patients. The most challenging problem surrounding the appropriate diagnosis of syncope is that at the time of medical assessment most patients are completely free of symptoms or worrisome clinical findings. The proper diagnosis lies then in a thorough recording of the events preceding and surrounding the syncopal episode, what most of us were taught in medical school as taking the clinical history. It is unclear when the first description of vasovagal syncope was reported in … *Corresponding author. Tel: +1 905 577 8004; fax: +1 905 521 8820. E-mail address : morillo{at}hhsc.ca or morillc{at}mcmaster.ca
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".