Urine cytology in renal glomerular disease and value of G1 cell in the diagnosis of glomerular bleeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of the present study were to evaluate the cytology of urine sediments in patients with glomerular diseases, as well as the value of G1 dysmorphic erythrocytes (G1DE) or G1 cells in the detection of renal glomerular hematuria. Freshly voided urine samples from 174 patients with glomerular diseases were processed according to the method used for semiquantitative cytologic urinalysis. G1DEs (distorted erythrocytes with doughnut-like shape, target configuration with or without membranous protrusions or blebs), non-G1DEs (distorted erythrocytes without the above-mentioned morphologic changes), normal erythrocytes (NEs), and renal tubular cells (RTCs) were evaluated. Erythrocytic casts (ECs) were counted and graded as abundant (>1 per high-power field) or rare (1 per 5 high-power fields). G1DE/total erythrocyte ratios were calculated by counting 200 erythrocytes including G1DEs, non-G1DEs, and NEs. Only abundant NEs were found in 13 cases; abundant G1DEs, non-G1DEs, NEs, and no ECs in 95 cases; abundant NEs, non-G1DEs, and ECs and no G1DEs in 31 cases; and abundant NEs, G1DEs and non-G1DEs, and rare ECs in 35 cases. In 130 cases in which G1DEs were present, the G1DE/total erythrocyte ratios varied from 10% to 100%. This parameter was greater or equal to 80%, 50%, 20%, and 10% in 58 (44.6%), 29 (22.3%), 28 (21.5%), and 15 (11.5%) patients, respectively. In all cases, the number of RTCs was within normal limits or slightly increased, and a variable number of non-G1DEs were present in 161 cases. Thus, abundant ECs and/or G1DEs with a G1DE/total erythrocyte ratio of 10-100% proved to be specific urinary markers for renal glomerular diseases.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".