ReviewMethodsX2024
Assessing the efficacy of machine learning algorithms for syncope classification: A systematic review.
Review in MethodsX, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deep Learning-Based Early Prediction of Syncope Onset During Tilt Table Testing via Temporal Convolutional Autoencoder Anomaly Detector.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Risk stratification of patients with syncope in the emergency department using ECG based artificial intelligence models.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Natural language processing systems for extracting information from electronic health records about activities of daily living. A systematic review.JAMIA open · 2024Review
- Recent Advances and Future Directions in Syncope Management: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Syncope is a transient loss of consciousness with rapid onset. The aims of the study were to systematically evaluate available machine learning (ML) algorithm for supporting syncope diagnosis to determine their performance compared to existing point scoring protocols. We systematically searched IEEE Xplore, Web of Science, and Elsevier for English articles (Jan 2011 - Sep 2021) on individuals aged five and above, employing ML algorithms in syncope detection with Head-up titl table test (HUTT)-monitored hemodynamic parameters and reported metrics. Extracted data encompassed subject count, age range, syncope protocols, ML type, hemodynamic parameters, and performance metrics. Of the 6301 studies initially identified, 10 studies, involving 1205 participants aged 5 to 82 years, met the inclusion criteria, and formed the basis for it. Selected studies must use ML algorithms in syncope detection with hemodynamic parameters recorded throughout HUTT. The overall ML algorithm performance achieved a sensitivity of 88.8% (95% CI: 79.4-96.1%), specificity of 81.5% (95% CI: 69.8-92.8%) and accuracy of 85.8% (95% CI: 78.6-92.8%). Machine learning improves syncope diagnosis compared to traditional scoring, requiring fewer parameters. Future enhancements with larger databases are anticipated. Integrating ML can curb needless admissions, refine diagnostics, and enhance the quality of life for syncope patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.