Prevention of Syncope Trial (POST)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies that assessed the effects of beta-blockers in preventing vasovagal syncope provided mixed results. Our goal was to determine whether treatment with metoprolol reduces the risk of syncope in patients with vasovagal syncope. METHODS AND RESULTS: The multicenter Prevention of Syncope Trial (POST) was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, trial designed to assess the effects of metoprolol in vasovagal syncope over a 1-year treatment period. Two prespecified analyses included the relationships of age and initial tilt-test results to any benefit from metoprolol. All patients had >2 syncopal spells and a positive tilt test. Randomization was stratified according to ages <42 and > or =42 years. Patients received either metoprolol or matching placebo at highest-tolerated doses from 25 to 200 mg daily. The main outcome measure was the first recurrence of syncope. A total of 208 patients (mean age 42+/-18 years) with a median of 9 syncopal spells over a median of 11 years were randomized, 108 to receive metoprolol and 100 to the placebo group. There were 75 patients with > or =1 recurrence of syncope. The likelihood of recurrent syncope was not significantly different between groups. Neither the age of the patient nor the need for isoproterenol to produce a positive tilt test predicted subsequent significant benefit from metoprolol. CONCLUSIONS: Metoprolol was not effective in preventing vasovagal syncope in the study 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".