MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2613532107 · doi:10.14814/phy2.13205

Validation of a routine two-sample iohexol plasma clearance assessment of GFR and an evaluation of common endogenous markers in a rat model of CKD

2017· article· en· W2613532107 on OpenAlexafffund
Mandy E. Turner, Kimberly Laverty, Paul S Jeronimo, Martin Kaufmann, Glenville Jones, Christine A. White, Rachel M. Holden, Michael A. Adams

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiological Reports · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsIohexolRenal functionPlasma clearanceInulinEndogenyMedicineClearanceInternal medicineEndocrinologyUrologyPharmacokineticsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endogenous markers of kidney function are insensitive to early declines in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and in rodent models, validated, practical alternatives are unavailable. In this study, we determined GFR by modeling the plasma clearance of two compounds, iohexol and inulin, and compared the findings to common endogenous markers. All plasma clearance methods of both iohexol and inulin detected a decline in renal function weeks prior to any increase in endogenous marker. Iohexol plasma clearance and inulin plasma clearance had a very high agreement and minimal bias when using 12-sample models. However, only iohexol could be accurately simplified to a two-sample, one-compartment estimation strategy. Following an IV injection of low-dose iohexol and two timed blood samples at 30 and 90 min, one can accurately approximate a complex 12-sample strategy of plasma clearance. This method is simple enough to use in routine, longitudinal analysis of larger cohort animal studies.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.121
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiological Reports→Same topicChronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes→French-language works237,207→