Recent syncope and unexplained falls are associated with poor cognitive performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: to compare cognitive performance in participants with and without syncope and unexplained falls in a large population representative sample aged 50 years or older.\n\nMethods: participants of the Irish longitudinal study on ageing (TILDA) were studied. Participants with a history of syncope and/or unexplained falls in the past 12 months were compared with those with no reported events. Cognitive performance was measured using the Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) score. Multivariate linear regression analysis controlling for potential confounders was performed to compare cognitive function by syncope and falls status.\n\nResults: five thousand eight hundred and forty-six participants were analysed, median age 62 years (inter-quartile range = 14), and 54% were female. Five hundred and forty-nine (9.4%) had a syncopal event and/or an unexplained fall in past 12 months. One hundred and two (1.8%) subjects had two-plus syncopal events in the same period. There was a significant association between syncope/falls history and lower MoCA score, following adjustment for all confounders (B = −0.4; −0.69, −0.11; P = 0.006). Higher syncope burden was also associated with lower performance; however, this was largely explained by confounders. There was no age interaction with these findings.\n\nConclusion: participants who experienced syncope and/or non-accidental falls in the previous year have poor global cognitive performance compared with case–controls. There was no effect of age on our results. Further investigation of the association between syncope burden, unexplained falls and cognitive decline is required to establish a relationship between these disorders.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".