MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057127955 · doi:10.1097/mnh.0b013e328349b8f9

Intrarenal urea recycling leads to a higher rate of renal excretion of potassium

2011· review· en· W2057127955 on OpenAlexafffund
Kamel S. Kamel, Mitchell L. Halperin

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Nephrology & Hypertension · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIon Transport and Channel Regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsUreaChemistryExcretionNephronReabsorptionPotassiumRenal physiologyDistal convoluted tubuleKidneyInternal medicineUrine flow rateConvoluted tubuleEndocrinologyBiochemistryRenal functionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to illustrate why urea recycling may play an important role in potassium (K⁺) excretion and to emphasize its potential clinical implications. RECENT FINDINGS: A quantitative analysis of the process of intrarenal urea recycling reveals that the amount of urea delivered to the distal convoluted tubule is about two-fold larger than the quantity of urea excreted in the urine. As the number of osmoles delivered to the late cortical distal nephron (CCD) determines its flow rate when aquaporin 2 water channels have been inserted in the luminal membrane of principal cells, urea recycling may play an important role in regulating the rate of excretion of K⁺ when the distal delivery of electrolytes is not very high. SUMMARY: Urea recycling aids the excretion of K⁺; this is especially important in patients with disorders or those who are taking drugs that lead to a less lumen-negative voltage in the CCD. As a large quantity of urea is reabsorbed daily in the inner medullary collecting duct, the assumption made in the calculation of the transtubular K concentration gradient that there is no appreciable reabsorption of osmoles downstream CCD is not valid.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations54
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Nephrology & HypertensionSame topicIon Transport and Channel RegulationFrench-language works237,207