The 99mTc-DTPA Urinary Clearance Method May Be Preferable to the Plasma Disappearance Method for Assessing Glomerular Filtration Rate in Diabetic Nephropathy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<b><i>Background:</i></b> Isotopic glomerular filtration rate (iGFR) measurement is comparable to the inulin method. In this study, we compared urinary and plasma iGFR methodologies in patients with diabetic nephropathy. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A total of 147 patients from 3 sites in the Diabetic Intervention with Vitamins to Improve Nephropathy (DIVINe) trial provided 213 sets of urine and blood collections, at baseline, 18 and 36 months. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The mean (with standard deviation) plasma iGFR of 60.7 (24.9) ml/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup> compared to urinary iGFR of 52.0 (28.0) ml/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup> was statistically significant (p value <0.001). Although plasma and urinary iGFRs were highly related (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.86), plasma iGFR increasingly overestimated urinary iGFRs at lower GFRs. In contrast to the cross-sectional analyses, the two measures of iGFR were weakly related (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.32) in regard to patients' change over 18 months of follow-up. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Plasma iGFR may not be a suitable method for accurately measuring GFR in patients with advancing degrees of chronic kidney disease from diabetic nephropathy.
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.
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 | 0.016 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it