[Is the head-up tilt-test necessary in patients whit clinical diagnosis of vasovagal syncope? Results using a non-sensitized protocol].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Tilt table testing is a simple, non-invasive, low risk test. A not sensitized protocol has been presented in order to shorten the duration of the test. OBJECTIVE: To determine the usefulness of a not sensitized tilt table testing and to compare the results with the pre-test probability, given by the Calgary's score. METHODS: We included patients≥15 years-old with syncope or presyncope with high probability pretest for a vasovagal origin, using the Calgary' score. RESULTS: Seventy patients were analyzed; age 39±20 years old, 66% female. More than 94% of the patients presented a score≥-1, but only 30% of the tilt tests were positive. A score≥-2 was not associated with the result of tilt test. Most of the patients presented a score of 1 (52) and 2 (11), resulting in positive tilt test 32% y 9%, respectively. Among patients with low pre-test probability there was a greater number of negative results (100% with a score of -2 and 50% with score of -5). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that in patients with vasovagal syncope suggested by clinical assessment, a not sensitized tilt test did not provide additional information, with a significant number of false negatives.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 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".