Glucoregulatory Hormones and Choice of Osmotic Agent in Peritoneal Dialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The present study was performed to explore the range of effects of amino acid-based peritoneal dialysis (PD) solutions on glucoregulatory hormones in comparison with an osmotically equivalent glucose-based solution. ♢ METHODS: 13 adult nondiabetic patients on PD underwent 2 peritoneal dwells of 2 hours' duration with either 1.5% dextrose solution or 1.1% amino acid solution. Serial sampling for glucoregulatory hormones was done throughout the duration of the dwell. ♢ RESULTS: Instillation of the 1.5% dextrose solution resulted in a modest change in plasma glucose, paralleled by a small increase in plasma insulin levels and plasma insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1). Plasma glucagon was not changed and plasma growth hormone level declined. Instillation of the 1.1% amino acid solution resulted in an increase in plasma glucose, plasma insulin, plasma glucagon, and plasma IGF-1. Plasma growth hormone level declined. Both solutions led to an increase in plasma norepinephrine but no changes were observed in epinephrine or dopamine. ♢ CONCLUSIONS: Our observations suggest that the mere replacement of glucose by amino acids in PD solutions does not necessarily imply "glucose sparing" from the perspective of induction of a glucoregulatory hormonal response because of the aminogenic stimulation of secretion of multiple hormones.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".