Usefulness of the Upright Posture Test in the Diagnosis of Primary Aldosteronism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To assess the usefulness of the upright posture stimulation test (UPT) in the confirmation of primary aldosteronism (PA) in patients in whom saline tests (ST) were inconclusive. Methods One hundred eighty-seven adult patients with possible PA were retrospectively included and compared to 25 control subjects. Blood samples were obtained after a 1-hour supine posture and during 2 hours of ambulation. An increase in plasma aldosterone concentration (PAC) ≥ 50% with a suppressed renin (≤10.1 ng/L; ≤1 ng/mL/hour) and a cortisol increase ≤50% were considered abnormal. Results PA patients had higher basal PAC and lower basal direct renin concentration (DRC) (P < .0001) and a higher maximal PAC (P = .0025) and lower maximal DRC (DRCmax) (P < .0001) during UPT compared to controls. PA was confirmed in 145 patients (77.5%), based on either oral/IV ST or UPT. DRCmax ≤12 ng/L during UPT was a predictor of PA (receiver operating characteristic curve sensitivity 93.8%, specificity 88%), and 95.6% of PA patients increased PAC ≥50% on UPT (median 222.2%), while renin remained suppressed. All 41 PA patients with false-negative IV ST (PAC < 162 pmol/L) and 88.9% with borderline response (162-240 pmol/L) had a DRCmax ≤12, while, respectively, 97.6% and 100% increased aldosterone by ≥50%. Similar responses to UPT were found in lateralized (28/63) and bilateral PA source (35/63). PA diagnosis increased from 23.6% to 88.8% using UPT results instead of IV ST and were confirmed at pathology and clinical outcome after adrenalectomy (n = 22). Conclusion UPT can be useful to confirm PA, particularly in patients with suspected false-negative ST.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".