Comparison of Canadian and San Francisco syncope rules in patients admitted to emergency department with syncope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: Syncope is the totality of symptoms in which consciousness is temporarily lost and postural tonus cannot be maintained, which resolves spontaneously and completely without any medical intervention. Although syncope has an important place among the reasons for admission to the emergency department, the diagnostic approach and what should be done in terms of discharge have not yet been fully systematized. In this study, a comparison was made according to age, gender, known diseases, and San Francisco and Canadian syncope rules. Methodology: This is a single-center, retrospective cohort study. During the study period, the vital parameters, ECG, blood tests, and physical examination findings of the patients who presented to the emergency department with the complaint of fainting were evaluated. The number of points scored by the San Francisco and Canadian syncope criteria was determined for each patient. It was stated which of the discharge, hospitalization in the ward, intensive care unit, and ex results each patient ended with. Each patient was investigated after 30 days, and it was investigated whether there were any of the negative results we wrote above within 30 days. At the end of all these, the San Francisco and Canadian syncope criteria were compared with the analysis method. Results: The study included 449 patients, of whom 52.1% were male and 47.9% were female, with a serious outcome rate of 10%, a readmission rate of 11.4%, and a mortality rate of 1.1%. Conclusion: In this study, it was found that the rate of no adverse events was significantly higher when the San Francisco Syncope Rule were negative; the San Francisco Syncope Criteria and the Canadian Syncope Rule gave similar results in predicting mortality and morbidity; the Canadian Syncope Rule were slightly more effective in predicting morbidity and mortality.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".