International multicenter survey on screening and confirmatory testing in primary aldosteronism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Primary aldosteronism (PA) is one of the most frequent causes of secondary hypertension. Although clinical practice guidelines recommend a diagnostic process, details of the steps remain incompletely standardized. DESIGN: In the present SCOT-PA survey, we have investigated the diversity of approaches utilized for each diagnostic step in different expert centers through a survey using Google questionnaires. A total of 33 centers from 3 continents participated. RESULTS: We demonstrated a prominent diversity in the conditions of blood sampling, assay methods for aldosterone and renin, and the methods and diagnostic cutoff for screening and confirmatory tests. The most standard measures were modification of antihypertensive medication and sitting posture for blood sampling, measurement of plasma aldosterone concentration (PAC) and active renin concentration by chemiluminescence enzyme immunoassay, a combination of aldosterone-to-renin ratio with PAC as an index for screening, and saline infusion test in a seated position for confirmatory testing. The cutoff values for screening and confirmatory testing showed significant variation among centers. CONCLUSIONS: Diversity of the diagnostic steps may lead to an inconsistent diagnosis of PA among centers and limit comparison of evidence for PA between different centers. We expect the impact of this diversity to be most prominent in patients with mild PA. The survey raises 2 issues: the need for standardization of the diagnostic process and revisiting the concept of mild PA. Further standardization of the diagnostic process/criteria will improve the quality of evidence and management of patients with 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".