MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380730602 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehad359

Tilt testing evolves: faster and still accurate

2023· letter· en· W4380730602 on OpenAlexaff
Artur Fedorowski, Robert S. Sheldon, Richard Sutton

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2023
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTilt (camera)Orthostatic vital signsReflexSyncope (phonology)TachycardiaAnesthesiaCardiologyTilt table testVasovagal syncopePhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicineBlood pressureHeart rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evolution of the tilt test protocol for reflex syncope and autonomic dysfunction 1986–2023. The left side represents evolution of the tilt test protocol for reflex syncope leading to the ‘Fast Italian protocol’, and years when changes were introduced. Tilt angles have progressively increased, with 70° now being the norm. Tilt durations have progressively shortened in the passive phase, with less change in the active (drug challenge) phase, which may be at the minimum for the drug to produce its effect and for the effect to initiate reflex syncope. The figure shows centrally a tilt test being conducted. It will be noted that the intravascular blood volume shifts into the legs with upright posture. The right side summarizes applications of the tilt test for detection of cardiovascular autonomic dysfunction with tilt duration proposed by autonomic societies. GTN = nitroglycerin; POTS = postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome; OH = orthostatic hypotension.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0140.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.010

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic DisordersFrench-language works237,207