Diabetes as a marker of pheochromocytoma in hypertensive patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of diabetes in patients with pheochromocytoma and the probability of pheochromocytoma occurring in hypertensive patients with or without diabetes. SETTING: A tertiary, referral hypertension department. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We compared age, body mass index and the frequency of diabetes in 191 patients with pheochromocytoma and a random sample of 880 patients with essential hypertension. Diabetes was defined as current antihyperglycemic treatment or two fasting blood glucose concentrations >or= 7 mmol/l. For patients with pheochromocytoma, we also recorded plasma catecholamine concentrations, the urinary excretion of metanephrines, and tumor characteristics. RESULTS: Diabetes was present in 68 (35.6%) patients with pheochromocytoma and 192 (21.8%) patients with essential hypertension (P < 0.001). Pheochromocytoma patients with or without diabetes did not differ in body mass index, plasma noradrenaline concentration, metanephrine excretion or tumor characteristics. Age, duration of hypertension and plasma adrenaline concentration were significantly and independently associated with diabetes in patients with pheochromocytoma. They were younger, more likely to be female and had a lower body mass index than those with essential hypertension (P < 0.01). After adjustment for these three variables, the odds ratio for pheochromocytoma in hypertensive patients with diabetes was 5.5 (95% confidence interval, 3.5-8.7). For patients younger than the age of 51 years with a body mass index < 25 kg/m2, the odds ratio was 18.9 (95% confidence interval, 5.9-58.8). CONCLUSION: Diabetes is present in one in three patients with pheochromocytoma. In young patients with hypertension and normal body weight, the presence of diabetes is a clinical clue to the diagnosis of pheochromocytoma.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".