Glomerular haemodynamic profile of patients with Type 1 diabetes compared with healthy control subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate the glomerular haemodynamic profile of patients with Type 1 diabetes with either renal hyperfiltration (GFR ≥ 135 ml/min/1.73 m2 ) or renal normofiltration (GFR 90-134 ml/min/1.73 m2 ) during euglycaemic and hyperglycaemic conditions, and to compare this profile with that of a similar group of healthy control subjects. METHODS: Gomez's equations were used to derive afferent and efferent arteriolar resistances, glomerular hydrostatic pressure and filtration pressure. RESULTS: At baseline, during clamped euglycaemia, patients with Type 1 diabetes and hyperfiltration had lower mean ± sd afferent arteriolar resistance than both those with Type 1 diabetes and normofiltration (914 ± 494 vs. 2065 ± 597 dyne/s/cm5 ; P < 0.001) and healthy control subjects (1676 ± 707 dyne/s/cm(5) ; p < 0.001). By contrast, efferent arteriolar resistance was similar in the three groups. Patients with Type 1 diabetes and hyperfiltration also had higher mean ± sd glomerular hydrostatic pressure than both healthy control subjects and patients with Type 1 diabetes and normofiltration (66 ± 6 vs. 60 ± 3 vs. 55 ± 3 mmHg; P < 0.05). Similar findings for afferent arteriolar resistance, efferent arteriolar resistance, glomerular hydrostatic pressure and filtration pressure were observed during clamped hyperglycaemia. CONCLUSION: Hyperfiltration in Type 1 diabetes is primarily driven by alterations in afferent arteriolar resistance rather than efferent arteriolar resistance. Renal protective therapies should focus on afferent renal arteriolar mechanisms through the use of pharmacological agents that target tubuloglomerular feedback, including sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and incretins.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".