MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408375433 · doi:10.1111/acem.70017

Validation of the <scp>Sudbury Vertigo Risk Score</scp> to risk stratify for a serious cause of vertigo

2025· article· en· W4408375433 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Elliot Tissot van Patot, Danielle Carole Roy, Elger Baraku, Kashyap Patel, Sarah McIsaac, Ravinder Singh, Daniel Lelli, Darren Tse, Peter Johns, Krishan Yadav, David W. Savage, Jeffrey J. Perry, Robert Ohle

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Emergency Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVestibular and auditory disorders
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalHealth Sciences NorthNOSM UniversityUniversity of OttawaDalhousie University
FundersNorthern Ontario Academic Medicine Association
KeywordsMedicineVertigoEmergency departmentConfidence intervalStroke (engine)Emergency medicineCohortPediatricsReferralInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: In 2022, nearly 0.5 million Canadians visited an emergency department (ED) for dizziness, accounting for over 3.5% of all ED visits. Of these patients, only 2%-5% received a serious diagnosis. The cost of ED and inpatient care for dizziness in Canada exceeds $200 million per year, of which neuroimaging accounts for a large proportion. Over one-third of dizziness patients undergo a CT scan of the head, 96% of which are negative. Despite extensive investigation, patients discharged with a benign dizziness diagnosis have a 50-fold increased risk of being admitted to the hospital within 7 days with a diagnosis of stroke. Our study aimed to derive a clinical risk score to guide the investigation and referral for serious causes of vertigo in ED patients. METHODS: This multicenter historical cohort study was conducted over 7 years at three university-affiliated tertiary care EDs. Patients presenting with vertigo, dizziness, or imbalance were recruited. The main outcome was an adjudicated serious diagnosis, defined as stroke, transient ischemic attack, vertebral artery dissection, or brain tumor. We estimated a sample size of 4450 patients, based on a 2% prevalence of serious outcomes, to evaluate the sensitivity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A total of 4559 patients were enrolled (mean age 78.1 years, 57.8% women), with serious events occurring in 104 (2.3%) patients. The C-statistic was 0.95 (95% CI 0.92-0.98). The risk of a serious diagnosis ranged from 0% for a score of <5 to 16.7% for a score >8. Sensitivity for a serious diagnosis was 100% (95% CI 96.5%-100%) and specificity was 69.2% (95% CI 67.8%-70.51%) for a score <5. CONCLUSION: The Sudbury Vertigo Risk Score effectively identifies the risk of a serious diagnosis in patients with dizziness. Thus, it guides further investigation, consultation, and treatment decisions and ultimately improves resource utilization and reduces missed diagnoses.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic Emergency MedicineSame topicVestibular and auditory disordersFrench-language works237,207