ArticleEndocrine2025
Searching for peripheral proteomic markers of primary aldosteronism.
Article in Endocrine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Emerging methods for subtype differentiation in primary aldosteronism.Journal of internal medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposePrimary aldosteronism (PA) is prevalent among hypertensive patients, and associated with worsened cardiovascular outcomes compared to essential hypertension (HT). Screening and diagnostics for PA are currently complicated and invasive, why new methods are needed. Unilateral PA (uPA) is best treated surgically, and bilateral PA (bPA) - medically. No validated proteomic diagnostic test has been found yet. Our aim was to explore proteomic markers in peripheral serum to discriminate between HT, PA, uPA and bPA.
methodsEighty-eight hypertensive individuals were evaluated for PA, and diagnosed with HT (n = 30); bPA (n = 29); and uPA (n = 29). Serum samples from these study groups were analyzed by Olink® Explore 384 Cardiometabolic Panel. A machine learning model based on ridge logistic regression with a stratified 5-fold cross-validation was used to identify HT, PA, bPA and uPA.
resultsIn the study groups, 56 circulating proteins were significantly different, and some of them specifically: 4 between PA vs. HT; 3 between bPA vs. uPA; 1 between bPA vs. HT; 9 between uPA vs. HT; 1 between HT vs. bPA vs. uPA. Three proteins with strongest differentiation (Coagulation factor IX for PA vs. HT; dipeptidyl peptidase 4 for uPA vs. HT and bPA; heat shock protein B1 for bPA vs. uPA) were validated by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Our machine learning model could successfully identify 95% of HT, bPA, and uPA samples.
conclusionSerum protein biomarkers may serve as a tool for discriminating HT, PA, uPA and bPA. Further studies are needed to support our results.
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.