Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives We intended to assess emergency department physician's practice pattern and their motivations for obtaining electrocardiograms (ECGs) in pediatric vasovagal syncope presentations. We also explored if borderline ECG findings alters emergency department physicians' management in this population. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey of emergency physicians enrolled in the Pediatric Emergency Research Canada network. The survey questionnaire introduced 2 clinical vignettes presenting a typical vasovagal syncope and a presentation suggestive of a cardiac etiology. Outcome measures included frequency investigations, specialist consultation, and disposition stratified by type of syncope presentation. We also evaluated which specific ECG findings were likely to change physicians' management and explored factors influencing the decision to perform or not perform the ECG. Results The analyzable response rate was 47% (105/225). In the low-risk scenario, 51% of respondents requested an ECG, and none consulted the cardiology service, given that all requested investigations are normal. Forty-five percent of physicians modified their management if an ECG was reported as anything but totally normal. In the high-risk scenario, all respondents requested either a 12-lead ECG or a high-lead ECG, and 94% consulted the cardiology service. Physicians also identified clear differences in the motivations behind their decision to perform an ECG in typical vasovagal syncope. Conclusions This study highlights the significant practice variation in the evaluation and management of typical vasovagal syncope among physicians, which is informed by complex interactions of patient, provider, and institutional factors and the perceived clinical significance of borderline ECG findings.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".