Outcomes of a Specialized Clinic on Rates of Investigation and Treatment of Primary Aldosteronism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Primary aldosteronism (PA) is one of the most common causes of secondary hypertension but remains largely unrecognized and untreated. Objective: To understand the outcomes of a specialized clinic on rates of evaluation and treatment of PA in the context of secondary factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study was conducted in Alberta, Canada, using linked administrative data between April 1, 2012, and July 31, 2019, on adults identified as having hypertension. Main Outcomes and Measures: We evaluated each step of the diagnostic and care pathway for PA to determine the proportion of people with hypertension who received screening, subtyping, and targeted treatment for PA. Variations in diagnosis and treatment were examined according to individual-level, clinician-level, and system-level characteristics. Results: Of the 1.1 million adults with hypertension, 7941 people (0.7%) were screened for PA. Among those who were screened, 1703 (21.4%) had positive test results consistent with possible PA, and 1005 (59.0%) of these were further investigated to distinguish between unilateral and bilateral forms of PA. Only 731 individuals (42.9%) with a positive screen result received disease-targeted treatment. Geographic zones and clinician specialty were the strongest determinants of screening, subtyping, and treatment of PA, with the highest rates corresponding to the location of the provincial endocrine hypertension program. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort, less than 1% of patients expected to have PA were ever formally diagnosed and treated. These findings suggest that a system-level approach to assist with investigation and treatment of PA may be highly effective in closing care gaps and improving clinical outcomes.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".