Does a high concentration of calcium in the urine cause an important renal concentrating defect in human subjects?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the hypothesis that a high concentration of ionized calcium in the lumen of the medullary collecting duct causes an osmole-free water diuresis. The urine flow rate and osmolality were measured in normal human subjects, as well as in patients with a history of nephrolithiasis who excreted more than 5 mmol of calcium per 24 h. There was an inverse relationship between the concentration of calcium in the urine and the 24 h urine volume both in normal subjects and in patients with a history of nephrolithiasis. When the concentration of calcium in the urine was greater than 5 mmol/l, the urine volume was less than 1 litre per day in the majority of subjects. After 16 h of water deprivation, when the concentration of calcium in the urine was as high as 17 mmol/l (ionized calcium 7.4 mmol/l), urine osmolality was 1258 mOsm/kg of water and the urine flow rate was 0.30 ml/min. We conclude that, although a calcium receptor may be present in the lumen of the medullary collecting duct in human subjects, an extremely high concentration of urinary total and ionized calcium does not cause a clinically important defect in the renal concentrating process.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it