Normal renal autoregulation in the presence of diabetic hyperfiltration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In uncomplicated type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM1) glomerular filtration (GFR) is often elevated despite normal renal blood flow (RBF). This diabetic hyperfiltration, and the accompanying salt paradox, in which GFR is inversely related to salt intake, result from afferent vasodilatation mediated by tubuloglomerular feedback (TGF). TGF normally contributes to autoregulation directly and by modulation of the myogenic mechanism. Therefore we tested renal autoregulation in rats with early (4 weeks) and longer term (12 weeks) DM1. Diabetic hyperfiltration (inulin clearance) was present in early DM1 in rats receiving normal salt intake, but not in those receiving high salt intake (∼4x chow), thus confirming the salt paradox. In early DM1, RBF dynamics were not different either between control and DM1 rats, or between control or DM1 rats receiving normal or high salt intake. At 12 weeks DM1, RBF dynamics were still not different from control. In addition the steady‐state pressure‐flow relationship showed significantly enhanced autoregulation at 50 – 80 mmHg in DM1 rats on normal salt compared with all other groups which did not differ. The results demonstrate effective autoregulation of RBF in DM1 that is identical to controls and they suggest that TGF‐mediated hyperfiltration (salt paradox) in early DM1 does not compromise autoregulation. Funded by HSFBCY
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".