Lack of benefit from hospitalization in patients with syncope: A propensity analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study Objective Patients with syncope are frequently admitted to the hospital, but whether this improves outcome is unknown. We tested whether hospitalization reduced mortality in patients who presented to emergency departments (EDs) with syncope. Methods We conducted a propensity analysis of the outcomes of patients ≥18 years old presenting to EDs with a primary diagnosis of syncope in April 2004–March 2013. The model used 1:1 nearest-neighbor matching to predicted admission using age, sex, urban residence, household income, and 14 significant comorbidities from 4 administrative databases of the province of Alberta. The primary outcome was death. Results There were 57,417 ED patients with a primary diagnosis of syncope; 8864 were admitted, and 48,553 were discharged in <24 hours. Admitted patients were older (median 76 vs 49 years), male (53% vs 45%), rural (23% vs 18%), and had lower income (median $58,599 vs $61,422); all P < 0.001. All comorbidities were higher in admitted patients (mean Charlson scores, 1.9 vs 0.7; P < 0.001). The propensity-matched hospitalized patients had higher 30-day mortality (3.5% vs 1.0%) and 1-year mortality (14.1% vs 8.6%); both P < 0.001. Mortality in all propensity quintiles was higher in the hospitalized group (all P < 0.001). The most common causes of death in 2719 patients included chronic ischemic heart disease, 14%; lung cancer, 7.1%; acute myocardial infarction, 6.9%; stroke, 3.7%; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 3.6%; dementia, 2.6%; and heart failure, 2.5%. Conclusions Hospital admission did not reduce early or late mortality in patients who presented to the ED with syncope. Mortality is associated with comorbidities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".