The hope and the hype of artificial intelligence for syncope management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: Syncope remains a diagnostic challenge despite advancements in testing and treatment. Cardiac syncope is an independent predictor of mortality and can be difficult to distinguish from other causes of transient loss of consciousness (TLOC). This paper explores whether artificial intelligence (AI) can improve the evaluation and management of patients with syncope. Methods and results: We conducted a literature review and incorporated the opinions of experts in the fields of syncope and AI. The cause of TLOC is often unclear, hospitalization criteria are ambiguous, diagnostic tests are frequently non-informative, and assessments are costly. Patients are left with unanswered questions and limited guidance. Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to optimize syncope evaluation by processing large data sets, detecting imperceptible patterns, and assisting clinicians. However, AI has limitations, including errors, lack of human empathy, and uncertain clinical utility. Liability issues further complicate its integration. We present three viewpoints: (i) AI is crucial for advancing syncope management; (ii) AI can enhance the patient experience; and (iii) AI in syncope care is inevitable. Conclusion: Artificial intelligence may improve syncope diagnosis and management, particularly through machine learning-based test interpretation and wearable device data. However, it has yet to surpass human clinical judgment in complex decision-making. Current challenges include gaps in understanding syncope mechanisms, AI interpretability, generalizability, and clinical integration. Standardized diagnostic approaches, real-world validation, and curated data sets are essential for progress. Artificial intelligence may enhance efficiency and communication but raises concerns regarding confidentiality, bias, inequities, and legal implications.
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 | 0.026 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".