The face of postural tachycardia syndrome – insights from a large cross‐sectional online community‐based survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with postural tachycardia syndrome (POTS) experience chronic symptoms of orthostatic intolerance. There are minimal data detailing the demographics, clinical features and clinical course of this condition. This online, community-based survey highlights patients' experience with POTS. It consists of the largest sample of POTS patients reported to date. OBJECTIVES: To describe the demographics, past medical history, medications, treatments and diagnostic journey for patients living with POTS. METHODS: Postural tachycardia syndrome patients completed an online, community-based, cross-sectional survey. Participants were excluded if they had not received a diagnosis of POTS from a physician. The questions focused on the patient experience and journey, rather than physiological responses. RESULTS: The final analysis included 4835 participants. POTS predominantly affects white (93%) females (94%) of childbearing age, with approximately half developing symptoms in adolescence (mode 14 years). POTS is a chronic multisystem disorder involving a broad array of symptoms, with many patients diagnosed with comorbidities in addition to POTS. POTS patients often experience lengthy delays [median (interquartile range) 24 (6-72) months] and misdiagnosis, but the diagnostic delay is improving. POTS patients can present with a myriad of symptoms most commonly including lightheadedness (99%), tachycardia (97%), presyncope (94%), headache (94%) and difficulty concentrating (94%). CONCLUSIONS: These data provide important insights into the background, clinical features and diagnostic journey of patients suffering from POTS. These data should serve as an essential step for moving forward with future studies aimed at early and accurate diagnoses of these patients leading to appropriate treatments for their symptoms.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".