Endothelial-Podocyte Crosstalk: The Missing Link Between Endothelial Dysfunction and Albuminuria in Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although diabetes is the most common cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) worldwide, most people with diabetic nephropathy will never develop ESRD but will instead die of cardiovascular (CV) disease (CVD). The first evidence of kidney injury in diabetes is often microalbuminuria, itself also an independent risk marker for CVD. Although the two processes are closely associated, the recent failure of antialbuminuric therapies to affect CV outcomes has encouraged a reconsideration of how albuminuria may occur in diabetes and how increased urinary albumin excretion may be indicative of CV risk. The relationship between CVD and urinary albumin content (even within the normal range) is widely considered to reflect the common underlying pathology of endothelial dysfunction. At the same time, recent years have witnessed a growing appreciation that diabetic albuminuria commonly arises from damage to glomerular podocytes, specialized epithelial cells acting as the final barrier to macromolecular flow into the urinary filtrate. These superficially discordant paradigms can be assimilated by the emerging concept of endothelial-podocyte crosstalk across the glomerular filtration barrier, whereby the actions of one type of cell may profoundly influence the function of the other. The bidirectional nature of this paracrine network is illustrated by the actions of the vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A)/VEGF receptor-2 and activated protein C systems, among others. Identification of novel mediators of endothelial-podocyte crosstalk may lead to the development of more effective treatments for diabetic nephropathy and its sequelae.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".