Urine Volume and Change in Estimated GFR in a Community-Based Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The effect of increased fluid intake on kidney function is unclear. This study evaluates the relationship between urine volume and renal decline over 6 years in a large community-based cohort. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This prospective cohort study was undertaken in Canada from 2002 to 2008. We obtained 24-hour urine samples from adult participants with an estimated GFR (eGFR) ≥60 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) at study entry. Percentage annual change in eGFR from baseline was categorized as average decline <1% per year, between 1% and 4.9% (mild-to-moderate decline) or ≥5% (rapid decline). RESULTS: 2148 participants provided valid 24-hour urine samples, grouped as <1 L/d (14.5%); 1 to 1.9 L/d (51.5%); 2 to 2.9 L/d (26.3%); and ≥3 L/d (7.7%). Baseline eGFR for each category of urine volume was 90, 88, 84, and 87 ml/min per 1.73 m(2), respectively. Overall, eGFR declined by 1% per year, with 10% demonstrating rapid decline and 40% demonstrating mild-to-moderate decline. An inverse, graded relationship was evident between urine volume and eGFR decline: For each increasing category of 24-hour urine volume, percentage annual eGFR decline was progressively slower, from 1.3%, 1.0%, 0.8%, to 0.5%, respectively; P = 0.02. Compared with those with urine volume 1 to 1.9 L/d, those with urine volume ≥3 L/d were significantly less likely to demonstrate mild-to-moderate decline (adjusted odds ratio 0.66; 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.94) or rapid decline (adjusted odds ratio 0.46; 95% confidence interval 0.23 to 0.92); adjusted for age, gender, baseline eGFR, medication use for hypertension (including diuretics), proteinuria, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. CONCLUSIONS: In this community-based cohort, decline in kidney function was significantly slower in those with higher versus lower urine volume.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".