Morphologically Normal-Appearing Adrenal Glands as a Prevalent Source of Aldosterone Production in Primary Aldosteronism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Normal-appearing adrenal glands on cross-sectional imaging may still be the source of aldosterone production in primary aldosteronism (PA). METHODS: We evaluated the prevalence of aldosterone production among morphologically normal-appearing adrenal glands and the impact of this phenomenon on interpretations of localization studies and treatment decisions. We performed a retrospective cohort study of PA patients with at least 1 normal adrenal gland and reanalyzed contemporary studies to assess interpretations of imaging and adrenal venous sampling (AVS) at the individual patient and adrenal levels. RESULTS: Among 243 patients, 43 (18%) had bilateral normal-appearing adrenals and 200 (82%) had a unilateral normal-appearing adrenal, for a total of 286 normal-appearing adrenal glands. 38% of these normal-appearing adrenal glands were a source of aldosteronism on AVS, resulting in discordance between imaging and AVS findings in 31% of patients. Most patients with lateralizing PA underwent curative unilateral treatment (80%); however, curative treatment was pursued in 92% of patients who had concordant imaging-AVS results but in only 38% who had discordant results (P < 0.05). In young patients, imaging-AVS discordance was detected in 32% of those under 45 years and 21% of those under 35 years. Among 20 contemporary studies (including 4,904 patients and 6,934 normal-appearing adrenal glands), up to 64% of normal-appearing adrenals were a source of aldosteronism resulting in 31% of patients having discordant results. CONCLUSIONS: Morphologically normal-appearing adrenal glands are commonly the source of aldosterone production in PA, even among young patients. The lack of awareness of this issue may result in inappropriate treatment recommendations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".