Dogmas and controversies in the handling of nitrogenous wastes: Excretion of nitrogenous wastes in human subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two major nitrogenous waste products, urea and ammonium (NH(4)(+)), are produced in humans when proteins are oxidized, and in this manuscript their excretions are examined from two perspectives. First, the specific physiology of each nitrogenous waste is reviewed and the current dogmas summarized. Second, their excretions are considered in the context of integrative physiology, i.e. the need to ensure that the urine composition is appropriate to minimize the risk of kidney stone formation. After the latter analysis, weak links in our understanding of the overall physiology become apparent and a conundrum is defined. The conundrum for the excretion of urea focuses on the fact that urea is not an effective osmole in the medullary-collecting duct when vasopressin acts. As a result, it appears that urinary urea cannot prevent a large decline in the urine flow rate and thereby minimize the risk of forming kidney stones in electrolyte-poor urine. The conundrum for the excretion of NH(4)(+) is: high rates of NH(4)(+) excretion require a low urine pH, yet a pH approximately 6.0 must be maintained in order to reduce the risk of precipitating uric acid in the urine. Possible ways of resolving these conundrums require novel physiological interpretations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".