MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066342122 · doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2002.019430

Influence of hypernatraemia and urea excretion on the ability to excrete a maximally hypertonic urine in the rat

2002· article· en· W2066342122 on OpenAlexaff
Surinder Cheema‐Dhadli, Mitchell L. Halperin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physiology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIon Transport and Channel Regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUreaExcretionTonicityUrineSodiumUrine sodiumChemistryEndocrinologyPotassiumInternal medicineUrine osmolalityHypertonic salineElectrolyteMedicineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rats normally excrete 20-25 mmol of sodium (Na+) + potassium (K+) per kilogram per day. To minimize the need for a large water intake, they must excrete urine with a very high electrolyte concentration (tonicity). Our objective was to evaluate two potential factors that could influence the maximum urine tonicity, hypernatraemia and the rate of urea excretion. Balance studies were carried out in vasopressin-treated rats fed a low-electrolyte diet. In the first series, the drinking solution contained an equivalent sodium chloride (NaCl) load at 150 or 600 mmol l(-1). In the second series, the maximum urine tonicity was evaluated in rats consuming 600 mmol l(-1) NaCl with an 8-fold range of urea excretion. Hypernatraemia (148 +/- 1 mmol l(-1)) developed in all rats that drank 600 mmol l(-1) saline. Although the rate of Na+ + K+ excretion was similar in both saline groups, the maximum urine total cation concentration was significantly higher in the hypernatraemic group (731 +/- 31 vs. 412 +/- 37 mmol l(-1)). Only when the rate of excretion of urea was very low, was there a further increase in the maximum urine total cation concentration (1099 +/- 118 mmol l(-1)). Thus hypernatraemia was the most important factor associated with a higher urine tonicity.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.711
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.206 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PhysiologySame topicIon Transport and Channel RegulationFrench-language works237,207