ArticleNeurology. Clinical practice2025
Validation of a Machine-Learning Clinical Decision Aid for the Differential Diagnosis of Transient Loss of Consciousness.
Article in Neurology. Clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acceptability and Utility of a Web-Based Patient-Completed Clinical Decision Aid for the Differential Diagnosis of Transient Loss of Consciousness: Qualitative Interview Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- 'BMJ open · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: The aim of this study was to develop and validate a machine-learning classifier based on patient and witness questionnaires to support differential diagnosis of transient loss of consciousness (TLOC) at first presentation. Methods: We prospectively recruited patients newly presenting with TLOC to an emergency department, an acute medical unit, and a first seizure or syncope clinic. We invited participants to complete an online questionnaire, either at home or at time of initial assessment. Two expert raters determined the cause of participants' TLOC after 6-month follow-up. We used independent development and validation samples to train a random forest classifier to predict diagnosis from participants' questionnaire responses and validate classifier performance. We compared classifier performance against penalized linear regression and referrer diagnosis. Results: We included 178 participants in the final analysis, of whom 46 identified a witness able to complete an additional witness questionnaire. Given low witness recruitment, we developed a classifier based on patient answers only. A classifier trained on 9 items correctly identified 63 of 78 diagnoses (80.8%) (95% CI 70.0-88.5), an increase over the accuracy of initial assessing clinicians who were only able to diagnose 70.5% correctly. Within this, 96% (87.0%-99.4%) of those expertly rated as having syncope were correctly classified by the classifier (classifier sensitivity); 40% (20%-63.6%) of those expertly rated after follow-up as having either epilepsy or functional/dissociative seizures were similarly classified as being nonsyncope (classifier specificity). Discussion: A machine-learning classifier for differential diagnosis of TLOC has comparable performance in differentiating between 3 main causes of primary TLOC as the current standard of care but is insufficiently accurate in its current form to warrant incorporation into routine care. A system including information from witnesses might improve classification performance.
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.