Primary Aldosteronism With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Requires More Antihypertensive Drugs for Blood Pressure Control: A Retrospective Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus (DM) and primary aldosteronism (PA) have been reported to induce drug-resistant hypertension and atherosclerosis. It is likely that blood pressure (BP) control becomes far more difficult in PA patients with DM. However, precise clinical characteristics of PA with type 2 DM especially in the aspect of BP control are not clear. METHODS: The study included 18 patients who were diagnosed as PA with DM and 52 PA patients without DM who matched age and sex and chosen as a control group. We have compared differences in BP control, use of antihypertensive agents and clinical characteristics between PA patients with and without DM. RESULTS: There was no difference with regard to the duration of hypertension and BP control between either group. Interestingly, the PA with DM group was found to require more antihypertensive agents than the PA without DM group (number of antihypertensive agents used, 2.0 ± 1.5 vs. 1.3 ± 1.1; P < 0.05, respectively). In the 28 patients who underwent measurement of central BP (CBP) values, plasma aldosterone concentration (PAC) was high in the PA with DM group. Furthermore, a positive correlation was shown between PAC and CBP (r = 0.58; P < 0.01); the higher the PAC, the higher the CBP of patient. CONCLUSIONS: These results might suggest that hypertension becomes more difficult to control in PA patients with DM in the future.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".