The Adrenal Vein Sampling International Study (AVIS) for Identifying the Major Subtypes of Primary Aldosteronism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: In patients who seek surgical cure of primary aldosteronism (PA), The Endocrine Society Guidelines recommend the use of adrenal vein sampling (AVS), which is invasive, technically challenging, difficult to interpret, and commonly held to be risky. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the complication rate of AVS and the ways in which it is performed and interpreted at major referral centers. DESIGN AND SETTINGS: The Adrenal Vein Sampling International Study is an observational, retrospective, multicenter study conducted at major referral centers for endocrine hypertension worldwide. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible centers were identified from those that had published on PA and/or AVS in the last decade. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The protocols, interpretation, and costs of AVS were measured, as well as the rate of adrenal vein rupture and the rate of use of AVS. RESULTS: Twenty of 24 eligible centers from Asia, Australia, North America, and Europe participated and provided information on 2604 AVS studies over a 6-yr period. The percentage of PA patients systematically submitted to AVS was 77% (median; 19-100%, range). Thirteen of the 20 centers used sequential catheterization, and seven used bilaterally simultaneous catheterization; cosyntropin stimulation was used in 11 centers. The overall rate of adrenal vein rupture was 0.61%. It correlated directly with the number of AVS performed at a particular center (P = 0.002) and inversely with the number of AVS performed by each radiologist (P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Despite carrying a minimal risk of adrenal vein rupture and at variance with the guidelines, AVS is not used systematically at major referral centers worldwide. These findings represent an argument for defining guidelines for this clinically important but technically demanding procedure.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".