MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120506367 · doi:10.1111/pace.12006

Low Body Mass Index Is Associated with a Positive Response during a Head‐Up Tilt Test

2012· article· en· W2120506367 on OpenAlexaff
Tiago Luiz Luz Leiria, Sônia Regina Barcellos, Maria Antonieta Moraes, Gustavo Glotz de Lima, Teresa Kuś, JUAREZ NEHAUS BARBISAN

Bibliographic record

VenuePacing and Clinical Electrophysiology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBody mass indexConfidence intervalUnderweightOdds ratioInternal medicineOverweight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To describe the association between body mass index (BMI) and a positive response during a head-up tilt test (HUT) in patients referred for an investigation of syncope. METHODS: Observational study of patients referred for the diagnostic evaluation of syncope. Patients were divided into four groups according to their BMI: <18.5 kg/m(2), 18.5-24.9 kg/m(2), 25-29.9 kg/m(2), and > 30 kg/m(2). RESULTS: A total of 419 patients were evaluated. The mean age was 43 ± 22 years, and 62% were female. The prevalence of a positive tilt test was different between groups when stratified by BMI (P = 0.01), with a higher proportion of patients with positive tests among those with BMI <18.5 kg/m(2) compared with other groups (P = 0.05). Multivariate analysis also showed that underweight patients had a 3.9 times higher risk for a positive HUT response (P = 0.01); additionally, the use of contraceptive drugs was associated with a protective effect during HUT (odds ratio: 0.35, confidence interval: 0.19-0.45, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: In our sample, changes in BMI are associated with a positive response for HUT, and oral contraceptives seemed to protect against this response. Further studies are needed with larger numbers of patients to corroborate this finding.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePacing and Clinical ElectrophysiologySame topicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic DisordersFrench-language works237,207