MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981799673 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz746.0612

P5669Clinical management of syncope patients guided by insertable cardiac monitors in Europe

2019· article· en· W2981799673 on OpenAlexaff
W Moyson, Atul Verma, Andrea Natale, Alpesh Amin, Sean C. Beinart, Scott E. Kasner, Hans‐Christoph Diener, Jeffrey Cerkvenik, Suneet Mittal

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
Canadian institutionsSouthlake Regional Health Center
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSyncope (phonology)Implantable loop recorderVasovagal syncopeInternal medicineCardiologyEmergency medicinePediatricsAtrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Current European guidelines recommend the use of insertable cardiac monitors (ICMs) in the early phase of evaluation for patients with recurrent, unexplained syncope and a likelihood of recurrence during the device battery life. The ongoing Reveal LINQ Registry collects real-world data on clinical actions guided by the insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) in these patients. Purpose To characterize ICM-guided diagnosis and treatment of syncope patients in Europe. Methods The Reveal LINQ Registry is a prospective, observational, multi-center study evaluating real-world performance of the ICM. Patients from European centres who had syncope indicated as the reason for ICM implant were included in the analysis. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to determine the percentage of patients receiving treatment. Results In total, 139 patients from 12 centres [Portugal (78); The Netherlands (30); Belgium (12); Italy (10); Germany (5); United Kingdom (4)] received an ICM to monitor for unexplained syncope and had at least one follow-up visit. The mean age was 61.2 and 51.1% were female. During a mean follow-up time of 11.2 months, 31 patients experienced at least one recurrent syncope event classified as: cardiac (9), vasovagal (4), idiopathic (8) and unknown (10). An arrhythmia was diagnosed in 14 (45.2%) patients with a recurrent event and clinical actions were taken in 12 (38.7%) patients (10 IPGs, and 2 AF ablations). Among patients without a recurrence, 25 (23.1%) had an arrhythmia diagnosed and 20 (18.5%) had a clinical action taken (13 therapeutic device implants, 4 ablations, and 3 medication changes). Overall, the rate of clinical actions was 32.6% after 18 months of ICM follow-up in the unexplained syncope population (Figure). Time to treatment Conclusion Clinical actions are taken in approximately one third of unexplained syncope patients monitored with an ICM after 18 months of follow up. Acknowledgement/Funding Medtronic

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic DisordersFrench-language works237,207