Understanding the Nature and Impact of Chest Pain in Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) is a chronic autonomic disorder that predominantly affects female patients of childbearing age. Chest pain is a common and debilitating symptom in POTS, but the nature of the chest pain and the patient experience surrounding it remain poorly understood. Methods: A qualitative descriptive design was used. Sixteen patients diagnosed with POTS who were experiencing chest pain were recruited. Semistructured video interviews were conducted that explored the nature and impact of chest pain in daily life. Transcribed interviews were manually analyzed using conventional content analysis. Results: Most patients described their chest pain as sharp and stabbing, often radiating from the left side of the chest to the jaw, back, or arms. Triggers for chest pain included physical exertion, such as walking and using stairs, and high temperatures; few described the pain as unpredictable. Frequency and duration of pain varied widely across patients, with episodes of pain ranging from fleeting to constant. Many shared that chest pain restricted physical activities that they once engaged in with their peers and that their social lives were directly affected, as shortness of breath from talking could trigger chest pain. Many patients also described feelings of isolation and frustration because of both their limited social and physical activities and recognition of a decrease in their overall capabilities. The most common coping strategies to mitigate chest pain were sitting or lying down and breathing strategies. Conclusions: Chest pain in POTS affects multiple dimensions of patients' lives and requires ongoing adaptation and coping.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".