ArticleHealth science reports2025
Machine Learning Methods for Predicting Syncope Severity in the Emergency Department: A Retrospective Analysis.
Article in Health science reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The hope and the hype of artificial intelligence for syncope management.European heart journal. Digital health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Syncope is a frequent reason for hospital emergency admissions, presenting significant challenges in determining its cause and associated risks. Despite its prevalence, research on using artificial intelligence (AI) to improve patient outcomes in this context has been limited. The main objective of current study is to predict the severity of syncope cases using machine learning (ML) algorithms based on data collected during on-site treatment and ambulance transportation. Methods: This study analyzed 572 records from five Spanish public hospitals (2018-2021), focusing on hospitalization, ICU admission, and mortality. A three-phase strategy was used: data preprocessing, model exploration, and model selection. In the exploration phase, three data transformations techniques were applied and in each of them, models were evaluated using stratified 10-fold cross-validation, optimizing AUC, accuracy, and recall, with emphasis on minimizing false negatives (FN). The top-performing models were fine-tuned and tested. The strategy was implemented using Python libraries and a diverse set of ML classifiers were applied, including linear discriminant analysis (LDA), random forest (RF), dummy classifier (DC), and gradient boosting (GB). Results: The RF classifier performed best for predicting hospitalization, reducing FN to 37% and achieving a true negative rate (TN) of 78%, with a recall of 0.63 and accuracy of 0.74. For ICU, DC showed FN = 29%, TN = 57%, recall = 0.625, and accuracy = 0.58. The LDA classifier excelled in predicting hospital mortality, with FN = 40%, TN = 89%, recall = 0.6, and accuracy = 0.88. These results indicate that RF was superior for predicting hospitalization, while DC for ICU and LDA performed better for predicting mortality. Conclusions: This study provides an experimental foundation for the application of ML techniques in managing syncope in ED. The intention is to stimulate AI research in this area, with a view to integrating these models into clinical workflows in the future.
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.