Oral Sodium Loading Test Is More Sensitive Than Seated Saline Infusion Test to Confirm Overt Primary Aldosteronism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Primary aldosteronism (PA), a frequent but underdiagnosed cause of hypertension, is associated with a significant burden of cardiovascular and renal complications. Studies have reported divergent results regarding the diagnostic performance of seated saline infusion test (SSIT) and oral sodium loading test (OSLT), 2 confirmatory tests recommended by the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guidelines. To our knowledge, no study directly compared the results of SSIT and OSLT to diagnose overt PA. Objective: We assessed the diagnostic performance of SSIT and OSLT in a group of patients with hypertension and elevated screening aldosterone-renin ratio (ARR). The diagnostic standard was defined as hypertension with or without hypokalemia with an elevated screening ARR and at least 1 abnormal confirmation test including OSLT and SSIT. Methods: A monocentric retrospective study was conducted, including 87 patients with hypertension with a positive screening who underwent both SSIT and OSLT. A diagnostic performance analysis was conducted using urinary aldosterone at a threshold of 27 nmol/day as the criterion for OSLT, in comparison to a plasma aldosterone concentration (PAC) exceeding 140 pmol/L following the saline infusion. Results: = .036). Conclusion: OSLT demonstrated a significantly higher sensitivity for diagnosing overt PA in comparison with the SSIT in our cohort of patients with hypertension with an abnormal screening ARR.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".