Symptom Presentation and Access to Medical Care in Patients With Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome: Role of Sex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) is a chronic form of orthostatic intolerance that primarily impacts female patients of childbearing age. The role of sex differences in POTS is not well understood. We sought to identify sex differences in diagnosis, symptoms, comorbidities, and treatments in female and male patients diagnosed with POTS. Methods A comprehensive survey was designed in partnership by Dysautonomia International (East Moriches, NY) and Vanderbilt University Medical Center (Nashville, TN). Patients were recruited through Dysautonomia International's website and social media channels. The survey was delivered online through a secure research data capture database. Responses were analyzed according to biological sex. Continuous variables are presented as median (25th percentile-75th percentile), and categorical variables are presented as number and proportion of participants. Results A total of 8919 patients reported a physician diagnosis of POTS and were included in this analysis. The majority of respondents were female (93.7%). Female and male patients experienced misdiagnosis at similar rates (76.2% vs 74.9%, P = 0.5) and saw a similar number of doctors before diagnosis (5 [3-8] vs 5 [3-8], P = 0.9). Despite these similarities, diagnostic delay was longer for female, compared with male, patients (1.50 [0.25-5.25] years vs 0.92 [0.08-2.91] years, P < 0.001). Conclusions Despite the primarily female demographic of POTS patients, female patients experience more challenges with diagnosis than male patients. Increased awareness and recognition of POTS may help to reduce the diagnostic challenges in both female and male patients, and improve treatment and management for individuals living with this debilitating disorder.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".