Adrenalectomy for Primary Aldosteronism: Significant Variability in Work‐Up Strategies and Low Guideline Adherence in Worldwide Daily Clinical Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Various diagnostic tests are available to establish the primary aldosteronism (PA) diagnosis and to determine the disease laterality. Combined with the controversies in the literature, unawareness of guidelines and technical demands and high costs of some of these diagnostics, this could lead to significant differences in work-up strategies worldwide. Therefore, we investigated the work-up before surgery for PA in daily clinical practice within a multicenter study. METHODS: Patients who underwent unilateral adrenalectomy for PA within 16 centers in Europe, Canada, Australia and the USA between 2010 and 2016 were included. We did not exclude patients based on the performed diagnostic tests during work-up to make our data representative for current clinical practice. Adherence to the Endocrine Society Guideline and variables associated with not performing adrenal venous sampling (AVS) were analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 435 patients were eligible. An aldosterone-to-renin ratio, confirmatory test, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging and AVS were performed in 82.9%, 32.9%, 86.9%, 17.0% and 65.3% of patients, respectively. A complete work-up, as recommended by the guideline, was performed in 13.1% of patients. Bilateral disease or normal adrenal anatomy on CT (OR 16.19; CI 3.50-74.99), smaller tumor size on CT (OR 0.06; CI 0.04-0.08) and presence of hypokalemia (OR 2.00; CI 1.19-3.32) were independently associated with performing AVS. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to examine the daily clinical practice work-up of PA within a worldwide cohort of surgical patients. The results demonstrate significant variability in work-up strategies and low adherence to The Endocrine Society guideline.
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 | 0.010 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".