A high rate of modestly elevated plasma normetanephrine in a population referred for suspected PPGL when measured in a seated position
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Determine rate of high plasma normetanephrine or metanephrine (PNM-PMN) in a large sample of patients according to PNM-PMN posture and age-adjusted references. DESIGN: Retrospective re-analysis of PNM-PMN from a Canadian reference laboratory (n = 5452), 2011-2015; most were in seated position (n = 5112) rather than supine (n = 340). An international PPGL database demonstrated expected distribution of supine PNM-PMN in PPGL patients. METHODS: All PNM-PMN from a tertiary referral laboratory were reviewed. Any PNM-PMN result greater than 2× upper reference limit (URL) was considered likely true PPGL. Results 1-2× URL were uncertain, requiring additional testing/follow-up despite most being false positive given the rarity of PPGL. The rate of results in the 1-2× URL category were calculated for each group according to collection posture and differing published URL: seated, supine or supine age adjusted. RESULTS: When collected and interpreted by seated URL, 19.6% of PNM required additional testing; only 4.6% being >2× URL. For patients over age 50 years, the abnormal rate was 24.9%. When collected supine, interpreted by supine age-adjusted URL, only 5.3% of PNM were mildly elevated. Possible false positives may be even lower when considering PMN or plasma methoxytyramine which were commonly high in true PPGL despite mild PNM elevations. CONCLUSIONS: In a general medical population, seated PNM has a high rate of abnormal results, far exceeding expected prevalence. Supine measurement with supine, age-adjusted interpretation is strongly preferred prior to costly or invasive PPGL investigations. SUMMARY: Review of 5452 plasma normetanephrine measurements showed 20% to be high, likely false positives for most. Supine, age-adjusted measures were half as likely to be elevated.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".