Diabetes Results in Structural Alteration of Chondroitin Sulfate in the Urine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The assessment of the clinical significance of chondroitin sulfate in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and diabetic nephropathy (DN) for the detection of the relationship between chondroitin sulfate (CS) structure and disease. METHODS: Healthy control (n=15), type 2 diabetic patients with normalbuminuria (n=12), and patients with microalbuminuria (n=13) were enrolled in the study. Total sulfated glycosaminoglycans (GAGs) concentration in the first morning urine was evaluated by 1,9-dimethylmethylene blue method and the composition was determined by agarose gel electrophoresis. Urinary chondroitin sulfate was quantified by a combination of treatment with specific lyase digestions and separation of products by SAX-HPLC. RESULTS: GAGs concentration significantly increased in diabetic patients with microalbuminuria compared to diabetic patients with normalbuminuria. Qualitative analysis of urinary GAGs revealed the presence of chondroitin sulfate, heparan sulfate, and low-sulphated chondroitin sulphate-protein complex (LSC-PG). There was a decrease in CS and an increase in LSC-PG in the urine of patients with diabetes compared to healthy controls. Moreover, in diabetic patients, chondroitin sulfate contains more 6-sulfated disaccharide and less 4-sulfated disaccharide. There was a statistically significant difference in ratio of 6-sulfated disaccharide to 4-sulfated disaccharide among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: GAGs were significantly increased in diabetic patients with microalbuminuria. The levels of urinary GAGs, ratio of LSC-PG/CS, as well as ratio of 6-sulfated to 4-sulfated disaccharides could be useful markers for diagnosis of patients with diabetic nephropathy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".