Are fibroblast growth factor 23 concentrations in renal transplant patients different from non‐transplanted chronic kidney disease patients?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To compare the pattern of serum FGF23 levels in pediatric renal transplant recipients and GFR-matched controls. We performed a cross-sectional matched pair study in 19 stable pediatric renal transplant recipients and 19 GFR-matched controls with native CKD. After assessment for normal distribution, demographic and bone metabolism parameters were compared with Student's t-test, Wilcoxon's matched pairs (for non-normal distribution) test, and correlation analysis. The groups were comparable for anthropometric parameters, cystatin C eGFR (71.10 ± 37.28 vs. 76.11 ± 26.80 mL/min/1.73 m(2) ), cystatin C, urea, creatinine, intact PTH, pH, CRP, alkaline phosphatase, phosphate, calcium, ionized calcium, FGF-23 (63.44 [IQR 38.42, 76.29], 49.92 [IQR 42.48, 76.97]), albumin, and urinary calcium/creatinine ratio. The renal transplant patients had significantly lower 25-(OH) vitamin D levels (66.63 ± 17.54 vs. 91.42 ± 29.16 ng/mL), and higher 1,25-(OH)(2) vitamin D levels (95.78 ± 34.54 vs. 67.11 ± 35.90 pm). FGF-23 levels correlated negatively with cystatin C eGFR (r = -0.3571, p = 0.02770) and positively with PTH (r = 0.5063, p = 0.0026), but not with serum phosphate (r = 0.2651, p = 0.1077). We conclude that the increase in FGF23 levels with GFR decline in pediatric renal transplant patients remains similar to that in the patients with CKD. The relationship between FGF23 and serum vitamin D needs further evaluation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".