MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3089293256 · doi:10.1002/emp2.12229

Lack of benefit from hospitalization in patients with syncope: A propensity analysis

2020· article· en· W3089293256 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Padma Kaul, Dat T. Tran, Roopinder K. Sandhu, Monica Solbiati, Giorgio Costantino, Robert S. Sheldon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
FundersIndustry Canada
KeywordsMedicinePropensity score matchingMyocardial infarctionHeart failureInternal medicineEmergency departmentSyncope (phonology)Stroke (engine)Emergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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: < 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians OpenSame topicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic DisordersFrench-language works237,207