Modified Calgary score in differential diagnosis between cardiac syncope and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome-associated syncope in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study was designed to analyse the usefulness of a modified Calgary score system during differential diagnosis between cardiac syncope and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome-associated syncope through a large sample sized clinical investigation. The study included 213 children, including 101 boys and 112 girls, with cardiac syncope or postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome-associated syncope in the age group of 2-19 years (mean 11.8 ± 2.9 years). A modified Calgary score was created, which was analysed to predict differential diagnoses between cardiac syncope and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome-associated syncope using a receiver operating characteristic curve. The median of modified Calgary scores for cardiac syncope was -5.0, which significantly differed from that of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (0.0; p < 0.01). The sensitivity and specificity of a differentiation score of less than -2.5 was 96.3% and 72.7%, respectively. Owing to the fact that the modified Calgary score was an integer, when less than -3.0 the diagnosis could be considered as cardiac syncope. The modified Calgary score could be used to make an initial differential diagnosis between cardiac syncope and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome-associated syncope in the clinic.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".