Accuracy and Usefulness of Select Methods for Assessing Complete Collection of 24‐Hour Urine: A Systematic Review
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
Twenty-four-hour urine collection is the recommended method for estimating sodium intake. To investigate the strengths and limitations of methods used to assess completion of 24-hour urine collection, the authors systematically reviewed the literature on the accuracy and usefulness of methods vs para-aminobenzoic acid (PABA) recovery (referent). The percentage of incomplete collections, based on PABA, was 6% to 47% (n=8 studies). The sensitivity and specificity for identifying incomplete collection using creatinine criteria (n=4 studies) was 6% to 63% and 57% to 99.7%, respectively. The most sensitive method for removing incomplete collections was a creatinine index <0.7. In pooled analysis (≥2 studies), mean urine creatinine excretion and volume were higher among participants with complete collection (P<.05); whereas, self-reported collection time did not differ by completion status. Compared with participants with incomplete collection, mean 24-hour sodium excretion was 19.6 mmol higher (n=1781 specimens, 5 studies) in patients with complete collection. Sodium excretion may be underestimated by inclusion of incomplete 24-hour urine collections. None of the current approaches reliably assess completion of 24-hour urine collection.
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 | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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