Compensatory Distal Reabsorption Drives Diuretic Resistance in Human Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the tubular location of diuretic resistance (DR) in heart failure (HF) is critical to developing targeted treatment strategies. Rodents chronically administered loop diuretics develop DR due to compensatory distal tubular sodium reabsorption, but whether this translates to human DR is unknown. We studied consecutive patients with HF ( n =128) receiving treatment with loop diuretics at the Yale Transitional Care Center. We measured the fractional excretion of lithium (FELi), the gold standard for in vivo assessment of proximal tubular and loop of Henle sodium handling, to assess sodium exit after loop diuretic administration and FENa to assess the net sodium excreted into the urine. The mean±SD prediuretic FELi was 16.2%±9.5%, similar to that in a control cohort without HF not receiving diuretics ( n =52; 16.6%±9.2%; P =0.82). Administration of a median of 160 (interquartile range, 40–270) mg intravenous furosemide equivalents increased FELi by 12.6%±10.8% ( P <0.001) but increased FENa by only 4.8%±3.3%. Thus, only 34% (interquartile range, 15.6%–75.7%) of the estimated diuretic-induced sodium release did not undergo distal reabsorption. After controlling for urine diuretic levels, the increase in FELi explained only 6.4% of the increase in FENa ( P =0.002). These data suggest that administration of high-dose loop diuretics to patients with HF yields meaningful increases in sodium exit from the proximal tubule/loop of Henle. However, little of this sodium seems to reach the urine, consistent with findings from animal models that indicate that distal tubular compensatory sodium reabsorption is a primary driver of DR.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".