The association of urinary sodium excretion and the need for renal replacement therapy in advanced chronic kidney disease: a cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Restriction of dietary sodium is routinely recommended for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Whether or not sodium intake is associated with the progression of CKD and mortality remains controversial. We evaluated the association of urinary sodium excretion (as a surrogate for sodium intake) on the need for renal replacement therapy and mortality in patients with advanced CKD. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patients followed at a CKD clinic of a tertiary care hospital from January 2010 to December 2012. Adult patients with advanced CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 ml/min/1.73 m(2)) were included. Using a time-to-event analysis, we examined the association of urinary sodium excretion as a continuous and also as a categorical variable (categorized as low sodium diet - LSD (<100 mEq/day), medium sodium diet - MSD (100-150 mEq/day), and high sodium diet - HSD (>150 mEq/day) and the outcomes of interest. The primary outcome was defined as composite of progression to end-stage renal disease requiring any type of renal replacement therapy and mortality. The secondary outcome was change in eGFR/year. RESULTS: 341 patients (82 LSD, 116 MSD and 143 HSD) were included in the study (mean follow up of 1.5 years) with a mean eGFR decline of 2.7 ml/min/1.73 m(2)/year. 105 patients (31 %) required renal replacement therapy and 10 (3 %) died. There was no association between urinary sodium excretion and change in the eGFR or need for renal replacement therapy and mortality in crude or adjusted models (unadjusted HR 1.002; 95%CI 1.000-1.004, adjusted HR 1.001; 95%CI 0.998-1.004). CONCLUSION: In patients with advanced CKD (eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73 m(2)), sodium intake does not appear to impact the progression of CKD to end-stage renal disease; however, more definitive studies are needed.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".