ArticleAmerican journal of hypertension2022
External Validation of Clinical Prediction Models in Unilateral Primary Aldosteronism.
Article in American journal of hypertension, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tools to Predict Unilateral Primary Aldosteronism and Optimise Patient Selection for Adrenal Vein Sampling: A Systematic Review.Clinical endocrinology · 2025Pooled it
- Time to Benefit of Surgery vs Targeted Medical Therapy for Patients With Primary Aldosteronism: A Meta-analysis.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2024Pooled it
- Is It Time to Retire Aldosterone Suppression Testing?American journal of hypertension · 2026Review
- Machine learning-based prediction of primary aldosteronism subtype using comprehensive clinical features.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Incidence of Adrenal Masses Eventually Discovered in Patients Screened for Primary Aldosteronism.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2026Article
- Identifying unilateral aldosterone-producing adenomas using published algorithms and imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Endocrine connections · 2025Article
- Adrenal Vein Sampling in Primary Aldosteronism-Is The Gold Standard Losing Its Luster?The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2025Article
- Discordance between adrenal vein sampling and imaging: the role of unilateral cortisol excess.European journal of endocrinology · 2025Article
- Validating Machine Learning Models Against the Saline Test Gold Standard for Primary Aldosteronism Diagnosis.JACC. Asia · 2024Article
- Primary Aldosteronism: State-of-the-Art Review.American journal of hypertension · 2022Article
- Primary aldosteronism - a multidimensional syndrome.Nature reviews. Endocrinology · 2022Review
- A new machine learning-based prediction model for subtype diagnosis in primary aldosteronism.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTargeted treatment of primary aldosteronism (PA) is informed by adrenal vein sampling (AVS), which remains limited to specialized centers. Clinical prediction models have been developed to help select patients who would most likely benefit from AVS. Our aim was to assess the performance of these models for PA subtyping.
methodsThis external validation study evaluated consecutive patients referred for PA who underwent AVS at a tertiary care referral center in Alberta, Canada during 2006-2018. In alignment with the original study designs and intended uses of the clinical prediction models, the primary outcome was the presence of lateralization on AVS. Model discrimination was evaluated using the C-statistic. Model calibration was assessed by comparing the observed vs. predicted probability of lateralization in the external validation cohort.
resultsThe validation cohort included 342 PA patients who underwent AVS (mean age, 52.1 years [SD, 11.5]; 201 [58.8%] male; 186 [54.4%] with lateralization). Six published models were assessed. All models demonstrated low-to-moderate discrimination in the validation set (C-statistics; range, 0.60-0.72), representing a marked decrease compared with the derivation sets (range, 0.80-0.87). Comparison of observed and predicted probabilities of unilateral PA revealed significant miscalibration. Calibration-in-the-large for every model was >0 (range, 0.35-1.67), signifying systematic underprediction of lateralizing disease. Calibration slopes were consistently <1 (range, 0.35-0.87), indicating poor performance at the extremes of risk.
conclusionsOverall, clinical prediction models did not accurately predict AVS lateralization in this large cohort. These models cannot be reliably used to inform the decision to pursue AVS for most patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.