MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979309614 · doi:10.1111/jch.12523

Unadjusted Plasma Renin Activity as a “First‐Look” Test to Decide Upon Further Investigations for Primary Aldosteronism

2015· article· en· W1979309614 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Rye, Alex Chin, Janice L. Pasieka, Benny So, Adrian Harvey, Gregory Kline

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Hypertension · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHormonal Regulation and Hypertension
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory ServicesUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimary aldosteronismMedicinePercentileHypokalemiaPlasma renin activityAldosteroneInternal medicineHyperaldosteronismAdenomaUrologyConfidence intervalRenin–angiotensin systemBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors sought to define the 95th percentile of plasma renin activity (PRA) in a sample of patients with confirmed primary aldosteronism (PA) prior to adjustment of medications as a practical "first-look" test to identify those with very low ultimate likelihood of having PA. The aldosterone to renin ratio (ARR) was measured without adjustment of antihypertensive medications, with further workup as appropriate. Two groups were defined: patients with surgically "confirmed PA" (n=58) and patients with "high-probability PA" (n=59), defined as having any of the following: computed tomography-confirmed adrenal adenoma plus lateralizing adrenal vein sampling (AVS) without surgery, high ARR and hypokalemia but nonlateralizing AVS, or ARR more than four times the upper limit of normal. The PRA 95th percentile was 1.0 ng/mL/h. All outliers had hypokalemia and two had adrenal adenomas. There was no difference between the confirmed and high probability groups. In the absence of highly suspicious clinical features, patients with unadjusted PRA >1.0 ng/mL/h do not warrant further investigation for PA.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.180
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical HypertensionSame topicHormonal Regulation and HypertensionFrench-language works237,207