MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2261312712 · doi:10.1186/s40697-016-0095-8

Consecutive First-Morning Urine Samples to Measure Change in the Albumin-to-Creatinine Ratio: A Pilot Study of a Home Urine Collection Protocol

2016· article· en· W2261312712 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jessica M. Sontrop, Amit X. Garg, Lihua Li, Kerri Gallo, V. Schumann, Jennifer Winick‐Ng, William F. Clark, Matthew A. Weir

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUrineCreatinineUrine collection deviceMorningUrologyUrine sampleAlbuminRenal functionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Multiple first-morning urine samples are recommended for measuring the urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR); however, this can be challenging in community-based research. METHODS: The objectives of the study are to pilot-test a home urine collection protocol and examine how the average and variance of ACR varied with the number of urine collections and time to laboratory analysis. This is a prospective observational pilot study. This study was conducted in London, Ontario, Canada at the London Health Sciences Centre (2012-2013). The patients were adults with chronic kidney disease (mean estimated glomerular filtration rate, 36 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). Participants collected a first-morning 20-mL urine sample on three consecutive days. This process was repeated after 3 months. Samples were picked up by hospital courier and analyzed for ACR on the same day; additional aliquots were analyzed after a delay of 24-48 h (stored at 4 °C) and 3-9 months (stored at -80 °C). The geometric mean of the percentage change in ACR between baseline and 3 months was calculated and compared between single samples and the average of two vs. three consecutive samples. RESULTS: Of 31 patients enrolled, 26 (83.9 %) submitted all six urine samples. The geometric mean of ACR for three consecutive samples at baseline was 87, 83, and 80 mg/mmol, and the corresponding percentage increase from baseline to 3 months was 15 % (95 % confidence interval (CI), -9 to 46 %), 33 % (95 % CI, 10 to 59 %), and 22 % (95 % CI, -6 to 57 %). Compared with single urine collections at baseline and follow-up, averaging ACR values from two consecutive first-morning urine samples improved the sample variance and reduced the required sample size to detect a given treatment effect by approximately 30 %. No further gain in statistical efficiency was achieved with three urine samples. Results were similar when the laboratory analysis was delayed by 24-48 h, but a delay of 3-9 months resulted in systematic overestimation of the ACR. Our study's generalizability is limited by its small sample size and reliance on a clinic-based population from a single urban center. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully used a home urine collection protocol to obtain multiple first-morning urine samples in patients with chronic kidney disease. Statistical efficiency was improved by averaging ACR values from two consecutive first-morning urine samples at baseline and follow-up.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and DiseaseSame topicChronic Kidney Disease and DiabetesFrench-language works237,207