MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2679063623 · doi:10.1093/ajh/hpx064

The Potential Role of Primary Care in Case Detection/Screening of Primary Aldosteronism

2017· review· en· W2679063623 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory Kline, Ally P.H. Prebtani, Alexander A. C. Leung, Ernesto L. Schiffrin

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Hypertension · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHormonal Regulation and Hypertension
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimary aldosteronismMedicineHypokalemiaPrimary careHyperaldosteronismSecondary hypertensionEndocrine systemPopulationIntensive care medicinePediatricsInternal medicineCardiologyAldosteroneBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endocrine hypertension, particularly primary aldosteronism (PA), was previously considered to account for less than 1% of all hypertension and was suspected only when patients presented with spontaneous hypokalemia. However, the last 20 years of PA research has now clearly shown that PA is not a rarity, but rather, may account for up to 13% of unselected hypertensive individuals and between 10% and 20% of those with resistant hypertension. Most of these patients do not have spontaneous hypokalemia. The population prevalence of PA likely far exceeds actual detection rates in routine clinical care. As PA represents one of the most common, potentially reversible causes of hypertension, and is associated with significant cardiovascular complications over the long term, it is clear that a pragmatic strategy for targeted case detection in primary care is needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of HypertensionSame topicHormonal Regulation and HypertensionFrench-language works237,207