Does concomitant autonomous adrenal cortisol overproduction have the potential to confound the interpretation of adrenal venous sampling in primary aldosteronism?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Demonstration of unilateral aldosterone production by adrenal venous sampling (AVS) is required to select appropriate candidates for adrenalectomy in patients with primary aldosteronism (PA). During AVS, aldosterone and cortisol levels are measured to assess successful cannulation and lateralization. In patients with aldosterone-producing adenoma (APA), concurrent autonomous cortisol secretion might confound AVS results. DESIGN AND PATIENTS: We retrospectively examined results in eight patients with cortisol-producing adenoma (CPA), but without PA, who underwent AVS. RESULTS: In all eight, cortisol was higher on the CPA side than contralateral (CL) (median 6·7-fold [range 2·4-27·2]; P = 0·012]). By cortisol criteria, CL catheter placement would have been labelled inadequate in six despite adrenal venous aldosterone levels markedly higher than peripheral (41·6-fold [7·2-510·5]; P < 0·001), suggesting successful cannulation. In all eight, adrenal venous aldosterone/cortisol (A/C) ratios on the CL side were indicative of increased aldosterone production (≥2 times peripheral), but in only three patients on the CPA side (difference CL side 44·5-fold [6·0-109·0] vs CPA side 1·65-fold [1·0-23·0]; P = 0·017). A/C ratios were higher on the CL vs the CPA side in seven (20·0-fold [4·7-76·0]). CONCLUSION: These results in patients with CPA suggest that in patients with APA, concurrent autonomous unilateral cortisol hypersecretion could confound AVS accuracy by increasing cortisol levels (reducing A/C ratio) on the CPA side, while reducing levels (increasing A/C ratio and suggesting failed cannulation) on the CL side. Misclassification of PA subtype or repeat AVS could result, underscoring the importance of adequately assessing cortisol production prior to AVS and the need to consider alternatives.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".