Bibliographic record
Abstract
Only humans faint, and not all do so. Syncope tends to recur, and the predisposition to syncope can persist over many decades. Observations such as these have suggested that there may be a genetic predisposition to vasovagal syncope. It seems to have a high prevalence in some families; having a parent who faints increases the likelihood of an offspring fainting, and this is increased even further if both biological parents faint. Numerous studies have correlated a number of genotypes with positive tilt tests. However, the control subjects are usually those who faint, but have negative tilt tests, making the conclusions about association with the clinical phenotype less certain. Twin studies, highly focused genome-wide association studies, and gene duplicate studies all suggest there are sites in the genome that associate with vasovagal syncope, although the specific genes, pathways, and proteins are unknown. A recent large, candidate gene study of kindreds with high, multigenerational prevalence of the vasovagal syncope identified 3 genes that associate with vasovagal syncope. Our understanding of the genetic correlates of vasovagal syncope is in its infancy, with much to be understood.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".