Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40668516›Full record

ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2025

Validation of syncope short-term outcomes prediction by machine learning models in an Italian emergency department cohort.

Alessandro Giaj Levra, Mauro Gatti, Roberto Mene, Dana Shiffer, Giorgio Costantino, Monica Solbiati, Raffaello Furlan, Franca Dipaola

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Alessandro Giaj Levra *Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Humanitas Research Hospital, IRCCS, Rozzano, Milan, Italy.
Mauro Gatti *IBM, Milan, Italy.
Roberto MeneRoberto Mene Electrophysiology Unit, Niguarda Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Dana ShifferDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy.
Giorgio CostantinoEmergency Department, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Monica SolbiatiEmergency Department, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Raffaello FurlanDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy. raffaello.furlan@hunimed.eu.ORCID 0000-0001-5209-6786
Franca DipaolaInternal Medicine, Syncope Unit, IRCCS. Humanitas Research Hospital, Via A. Manzoni, 56, Rozzano, 20089, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning (ML) algorithms have the potential to enhance the prediction of adverse outcomes in patients with syncope. Recently, gradient boosting (GB) and logistic regression (LR) models have been applied to predict these outcomes following a syncope episode, using the Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS) predictors. This study aims to externally validate these models and compare their performance with novel models. We included all consecutive non-low-risk patients evaluated in the emergency department for syncope between 2015 and 2017 at six Italian hospitals. The GB and LR models were trained and tested using previously validated CSRS predictors. Additionally, recently developed deep learning (TabPFN) and large language models (TabLLM) were validated on the same cohort. The area under the curve (AUC), Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC), and Brier score (BS) were compared for each model. A total of 257 patients were enrolled, with a median age of 71 years. Thirteen percent had adverse outcomes at 30 days. The GB model achieved the best performance, with an AUC of 0.78, an MCC of 0.36, and a BS of 0.42. Significant performance differences were observed compared with the TabPFN model (p < 0.01) and the TabLLM model (p = 0.01). The GB model performed only slightly better than the LR model. The predictive capability of the GB and LR models using CSRS variables was reduced when validated in an external syncope cohort characterized by a higher event rate.

Indexed as

Machine LearningSyncopeAgedAged, 80 and overArea Under CurveCohort StudiesEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansItalyLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentROC CurveArtificial intelligenceCanadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS)Gradient boostingLarge language modelsMachine learningRisk predictionSyncope

Identifiers

PMID40668516
PMCPMC12331830

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.