A Comparison of Biochemical Tests for Pheochromocytoma: Measurement of Fractionated Plasma Metanephrines Compared with the Combination of 24-Hour Urinary Metanephrines and Catecholamines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared the diagnostic efficacy of fractionated plasma metanephrine measurements to measurements of 24-h urinary total metanephrines and catecholamines in outpatients tested for pheochromocytoma at Mayo Clinic Rochester from January 1, 1999, until November 27, 2000. Catecholaminesecreting tumors were histologically proven. The sensitivity of fractionated plasma metanephrines was 97% (30 of 31 patients), compared with a sensitivity of 90% (28 of 31) for urinary total metanephrines and catecholamines (P = 0.63). The specificity of fractionated plasma metanephrines was 85% (221 of 261), compared with 98% (257 of 261; P < 0.001) for urinary measurements. The likelihood ratios for positive tests were 6.3 (95% confidence interval, 4.7 to 8.5) for fractionated plasma metanephrines and 58.9 (95% confidence interval, 22.1 to 156.9) for urinary total metanephrines and catecholamines. An adrenal pheochromocytoma was missed by urinary testing in two patients with familial syndromes and one asymptomatic patient with an incidentally discovered adrenal mass. An extra-adrenal paraganglioma was missed by plasma testing in one patient. In conclusion, measurements of 24-h urinary total metanephrines and catecholamines yield fewer false-positive results, an attribute preferred for testing low-risk patients, but fractionated plasma metanephrine measurements may be preferred in high-risk patients with familial endocrine syndromes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".