The development and preliminary validation of a scale measuring the impact of syncope on quality of life
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To develop a brief syncope-specific measure of health-related quality of life. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred and fourteen patients with syncope completed a 48-item questionnaire derived from a generic measure of quality of life (the EQ-5D), the Syncope Functional Status Questionnaire, a depression scale (the CES-D) and historical symptoms. From these, clinical impact methodology was used to derive 12-item Impact of Syncope on Quality of Life (ISQL). The ISQL correlated with the number of syncopal spells in the previous year (r = 0.35), self-perceived health status (r = -0.55), the three scores from the SFSQ: [impairment (r = 0.77), fear and worry (r = 0.72), syncope dysfunction (r = 0.82), and depression (r = 0.62)], illustrating its convergent validity with these concepts. Known group differences were evident between patients who exhibited reduced quality of life on the EQ-5D and those who did not. There was no significant correlation between ISQL score and age or gender. ISQL score correlated better with the frequency of spells in the previous year than years prior to the previous year. CONCLUSION: The ISQL is a brief valid measure of the impact of syncope on quality of life. It measures impairment, fear, depression, and physical limitations, and correlates with recent syncope frequency.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it