VURD Syndrome—Does it Really Preserve Long-Term Renal Function?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: VURD (posterior urethral valves, unilateral vesicoureteral reflux and renal dysplasia) syndrome is the combination of persistent unilateral vesicoureteral reflux associated with an ipsilateral dysplastic, poorly functioning kidney in patients with posterior urethral valves. It was postulated that this syndrome may result in preservation of long-term renal function due to a pressure release pop-off mechanism. We determined the effects of VURD long-term renal outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of boys diagnosed with posterior urethral valves between 1983 and 2009 at a single pediatric tertiary hospital. Patients were divided into those with and those without VURD syndrome. The outcome of interest was renal impairment, defined as stage 3 or greater chronic kidney disease (glomerular filtration rate less than 60 ml/min/1.73 m(2)). RESULTS: We identified 89 patients, of whom 23 (26%) had VURD. Median followup was 77 and 57 months in the VURD and nonVURD groups, respectively. Seven patients (30%) with and 26 (39%) without VURD had significant renal impairment. Survival analysis using a Cox proportional hazard model showed no association between VURD and renal impairment (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.65-1.70). The main predictors of renal function were the creatinine nadir and patient age at diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: VURD syndrome does not seem to have a long-term protective effect on renal function.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".