Incomplete distal renal tubular acidosis affects growth in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Incomplete distal renal tubular acidosis (idRTA) is recognized as an underlying aetiology in recurrent nephrolithiasis. Until the recently reported high prevalence of idRTA in adults with osteoporosis, the effect of idRTA on skeletal parameters was not known. We hypothesize that idRTA has a potential to affect height in the paediatric population. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, the children with posterior urethral valves (PUV), with normal estimated glomerular filtration rates, were evaluated for idRTA and complete dRTA. The idRTA evaluation was done by short ammonium chloride acidification test. The height standard deviation scores (SDS) in the idRTA group were compared with PUV children without dRTA, with complete dRTA, and to age and gender matched controls with no renal issue (n = 50). RESULTS: The idRTA group (n = 17) manifested a significantly lower mean height SDS (-1.94 +/- 0.41 vs -0.46 +/- 0.28; P < 0.001) and a higher short stature prevalence (height SDS below 2) (18% vs 0; P = 0.06) as compared with those without dRTA (n = 23). The matched controls showed a significantly higher height SDS as compared with the idRTA group (-0.39 +/- 0.25 vs -1.94 +/- 0.41; P < 0.001). As compared with the complete dRTA group (n = 9), the children with idRTA did have significantly higher height SDS (-1.94 +/- 0.41 vs -5.31 +/- 1.95; P = 0.002), and a lower short stature prevalence (18% vs 78%; P = 0.001). On multivariate analysis, dRTA was significantly associated with the height SDS (= -0.88; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Incomplete dRTA affects height in children. This observation needs validation in longitudinal studies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".