MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111215624 · doi:10.1210/clinem/dgaa930

Repeat Adrenal Vein Sampling in Aldosteronism: Reproducibility and Interpretation of Persistently Discordant Results

2020· article· en· W3111215624 on OpenAlexafffund
Gregory Kline, Alexander A. C. Leung, Davis Sam, Alex Chin, Benny So

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHormonal Regulation and Hypertension
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineCosyntropinPrimary aldosteronismReproducibilityRadiologyIntraclass correlationNuclear medicineInternal medicineAdrenocorticotropic hormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: The reproducibility of adrenal vein sampling (AVS) is unknown. OBJECTIVE: This work aimed to determine reproducibility of biochemical results and diagnostic lateralization in patients undergoing repeat AVS. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of single-center, single-operator AVS procedures at a tertiary care center. Included were patients with confirmed primary aldosteronism (PA) undergoing repeat AVS because of concerns about technical success or discordant diagnostic results. Simultaneous AVS was performed by an experienced operator using a consistent protocol of precosyntropin and postcosyntropin infusion. Among successfully catheterized adrenal veins (selectivity index ≥ 2), the correlation of the adrenalaldosterone/cortisol (A/C) ratio was measured between the first and second AVS. The secondary outcome measure was diagnostic agreement on repeat AVS lateralization (lateralization index ≥ 3). RESULTS: There were 46 sets of AVS from 23 patients at a median of 3 months apart. There was moderate correlation in A/C ratios in the adrenal veins and inferior vena cava (Spearman r = 0.49-0.59, P < .05) pre cosyntropin. Post cosyntropin, the correlation was better (Spearman r = 0.67-0.76, P < .05). In technically successful AVS, there was moderate correlation between the repeated lateralization indices (Spearman r = 0.53, P < .05). In 15 patients in whom repeat AVS was performed because of apparent lateralization discordance with computed tomography imaging, the final diagnosis was the same in the second AVS procedure. Initial failed AVS was successful 75% of the time on repeat attempt. CONCLUSION: Repeat AVS was feasible and usually successful when an initial attempt failed. There was modest correlation between individual repeat adrenal A/C ratios and lateralization indices when AVS was performed twice. The final lateralization diagnosis was identical in all cases. This demonstrates that AVS is a reliable and reproducible localizing test in PA.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.137
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & MetabolismSame topicHormonal Regulation and HypertensionFrench-language works237,207