ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2025
Validation of syncope short-term outcomes prediction by machine learning models in an Italian emergency department cohort.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prediction of vasovagal syncope using artificial intelligence-enabled smartwatch photoplethysmography-derived heart rate variability.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- A modified Canadian Syncope Risk Score for emergency department use.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in medicine: a position paper by the Italian Society of Internal Medicine.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Article
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
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
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.