Faintly tired: a systematic review of fatigue in patients with orthostatic syncope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Orthostatic syncope (transient loss of conscious when standing-fainting) is common and negatively impacts quality of life. Many patients with syncope report experiencing fatigue, sometimes with "brain fog", which may further impact their quality of life, but the incidence and severity of fatigue in patients with syncope remain unclear. In this systematic review, we report evidence on the associations between fatigue and conditions of orthostatic syncope. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search of four academic databases to identify articles that evaluated the association between orthostatic syncope [postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), vasovagal syncope (VVS), orthostatic hypotension (OH)] and fatigue. Studies were independently screened using a multi-stage approach by two researchers to maintain consistency and limit bias. RESULTS: Our initial search identified 2797 articles, of which 13 met our inclusion criteria (POTS n = 10; VVS n = 1; OH n = 1; VVS and POTS n = 1). Fatigue scores were significantly higher in patients with orthostatic syncope than healthy controls, and were particularly severe in those with POTS. Fatigue associated with orthostatic syncope disorders spanned multiple domains, with each dimension contributing equally to increased fatigue. "Brain fog" was an important symptom of POTS, negatively affecting productivity and cognition. Finally, fatigue was negatively associated with mental health in patients with POTS. CONCLUSION: In conditions of orthostatic syncope, fatigue is prevalent and debilitating, especially in patients with POTS. The consideration of fatigue in patients with orthostatic disorders is essential to improve diagnosis and management of symptoms, thus improving quality of life for affected individuals.
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 | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".