Prognosis of pulmonary embolism associated with syncope: a prospective cohort with the pulmonary embolism registry of Bogodogo university hospital /Burkina Faso
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prognosis value of syncope in pulmonary embolism remains uncertain. Our aim in this study is to investigate this question. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, single-center cohort study of pulmonary embolism from March 1, 2017 to June 31, 2022. Patients were subdivided into two groups according to whether or not they had syncope prior to being hospitalized: syncope (+) vs. syncope (-). Our study analysis aimed at identifying factors associated with the occurrence of syncope. Thereafter, it focused on determining whether syncope was an independent risk factor by using logistic regression that was specific to in-hospital death. RESULTS: Four hundred and fifty-one patients were included in the study, including 66 with syncope prior to hospitalization. The prevalence of this symptom during pulmonary embolism was of 14.63%. The variables associated with the occurrence of syncope were presence of proximal localization of the thrombus in pulmonary arteries, significant pulmonary hypertension, dilatation of the right heart chambers and a high severity index. Mortality in the syncope (+) group was significantly higher (24% vs. 9%; OR = 3,2 p < 0.001) in univariate analysis. After regression that was specific to in-hospital death, syncope was not found to be an independent death factor (OR = 1.03 [0.44; 2.42]; p = 0.60). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that syncope is not an independent risk factor for death in PE. It is, however, associated with vulnerable conditions that place patients at high risk of early death.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".