Renal damage in primary aldosteronism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In experimental animal models, exogenous aldosterone excess has been linked to the progression of renal disease. However, the evidence of an increased risk of renal damage in patients affected by primary aldosteronism remains controversial. We aimed at evaluating the association between primary aldosteronism and renal damage through a meta-analysis. METHODS: We performed a quantitative review of studies evaluating parameters of renal function in patients affected by primary aldosteronism compared with hypertensive patients without primary aldosteronism and in patients affected by primary aldosteronism before and after treatment. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1960 up to April 2019. RESULTS: Forty-six studies including 6056 patients with primary aldosteronism and 9733 patients affected by arterial hypertension without primary aldosteronism were included. After 8.5 years from hypertension diagnosis, patients with primary aldosteronism had an increased estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) compared with hypertensive patients without primary aldosteronism [by 3.37 ml/min IQR (0.82-5.93)] and a more severe albuminuria [standard mean difference 0.55 (0.19-0.91)], resulting into an association with microalbuminuria [odds ratio (OR) 2.09 (1.40; 3.12)] and proteinuria [OR 2.68 (1.89;3.79)]. Following primary aldosteronism treatment, after a median follow-up of 12 months, a reduction in eGFR was observed [by -10.69 ml/min (-13.23; -8.16)], consistent in both medically and surgically treated patients. Similarly, a reduction in albumin excretion and an increase in serum creatinine were observed after treatment. CONCLUSION: Patients affected by primary aldosteronism, compared with patients affected by arterial hypertension without primary aldosteronism, display a more pronounced target organ damage, which can be mitigated by the specific treatment.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".